U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–486 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–808

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE EROSION

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SPECIAL HEARINGS

JUNE 29, 2004—ANCHORAGE, AK 

JUNE 30, 2004—ANCHORAGE, AK

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2004

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Ted Stevens .......................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Conrad Burns ...................................................................... 2

Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska .................... 2

Statement of Senator John Sununu, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire ........ 3

Statement of Brigadier General Robert L. Davis, Division Engineer, Pacific 

Ocean Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers ................................ 4

Accompanied by Colonel Tim Gallagher, Commander, United States Army 

Corps of Engineers’ Alaska District .................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement of Brigadier General Robert L. Davis ................................. 5

Pacific Ocean Division ............................................................................................. 6

Alaska Flooding and Erosion .................................................................................. 6

Corps of Engineers Authorities .............................................................................. 6

Prior Flood and Erosion Control Studies and Projects ......................................... 7

Current Studies and Projects ................................................................................. 8

Challenges ................................................................................................................ 11

Prepared Statement of Aleutians East Borough ................................................... 13

Nelson Lagoon Erosion Control Project ................................................................. 13

Statement of John Pennington, Regional Director, U.S. Federal Emergency 

Management Agency ............................................................................................ 14

Accompanied by Carl Cook, Division Director, Flood Insurance Mitigation 

Division, U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency .................................. 14

Stafford Act Assistance ........................................................................................... 14

Pre-disaster Mitigation Program ............................................................................ 15

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program ......................................................................... 15

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program .................................................................... 16

Prepared Statement of John E. Pennington .......................................................... 16

Statement of Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director, Natural Resources and 

Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office .................................................. 18

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 20

Most Alaska Native Villages are Affected to Some Extent by Flooding and 

Erosion .................................................................................................................. 24

Alaska Native Villages Have Difficulty Qualifying for Federal Assistance ........ 25

Four Villages in Imminent Danger are Planning to Relocate, and the Remaining Five Villages are Taking Other Actions ....................................................... 27

Alternatives for Addressing Barriers That Villages Face in Obtaining Federal 

Services ................................................................................................................. 28

Statement of Patrick N. Poe, Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, Federal 

Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ......................... 30

Importance of Aviation in Alaska ........................................................................... 30

Airport Improvement Program Grants .................................................................. 30

Building an Airport in Alaska ................................................................................ 30

Prepared Statement of Patrick N. Poe ................................................................... 31

Federal Assistance to Villages ................................................................................ 33

Airport Relocations .................................................................................................. 35

FEMA’s Prevention Authority ................................................................................ 35

Relocate a Village .................................................................................................... 36

National Flood Insurance Program ........................................................................ 40

Statement of Wayne Mundy, Administrator, Alaska Office of Native American 

Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development .................. 44

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 46
Page

IV

Statement of Edgar Blatchford, Commissioner, Department of Community 

and Economic Development, Anchorage, Alaska ............................................... 47

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 49

Statement of David E. Liebersbach, Director, Division of Homeland Security 

and Emergency Management, Fort Richardson, Alaska ................................... 51

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 53

Statement of Dr. Thomas R. Karl, Director, National Climatic Data Center, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce ............................................................................................................. 70

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 75

Statement of Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research 

Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks ........................................................... 78

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 80

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2004

Opening Statement of Senator Ted Stevens .......................................................... 89

Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska .................... 90

Statement of Hon. Reggie Joule, Alaska State Representative ........................... 91

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 93

Statement of George Ahmaogak, Sr., Mayor, North Slope Borough, Barrow, 

Alaska ................................................................................................................... 97

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 100

Statement of Loretta Bullard, President, Kawerak, Inc. ..................................... 102

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 104

Statement of Myron P. Naneng, Sr., President, Association of Village Council 

Presidents ............................................................................................................. 106

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 108

Statement of Hugh Short, Mayor, Bethel, Alaska ................................................ 115

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 117

Statement of Edith A. Vorderstrasse, Mayor, Barrow, Alaska ............................ 118

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 119

Statement of Steve Ivanoff, President, Unalakleet Native Corporation ............. 119

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 121

Statement of Rex Rock, Chief Executive Officer, Tikigaq Corporation ............... 123

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 125

Statement of Stanley Tom, Tribal Liaison, Newtok Traditional Council ........... 129

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 131

Statement of Enoch Adams, Jr., Chairman, Kivalina Relocation Planning 

Committee ............................................................................................................. 132

Statement of Luci Eningowuk, Chairperson, Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition ........................................................................................................ 133

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 138

Statement of Franklin Rexford, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of 

Kaktovik ................................................................................................................ 147

Statement of Dr. Joseph Suhayda, Hydraulic Engineers, HESCO Bastion 

USA, LLC, Hammond, Louisiana ....................................................................... 151

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 155

HESCO and HESCO Products ............................................................................... 155

HESCO Alaska ......................................................................................................... 156

Additional submitted statements ........................................................................... 157

Prepared Statement of Thomas K. Bolen, Public Services Director, Northwest 

Arctic Borough ...................................................................................................... 157

Prepared Statement of John Duffy, Borough Manager, Matanuska-Susitna 

Borough ................................................................................................................. 158
(1)

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE EROSION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Anchorage, AK. 

The committee met at 8:47 a.m., in the Z.J. Loussac Public Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Ted Stevens 

(chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Stevens and Burns. 

Also present: Senators Murkowski and Sununu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Chairman STEVENS. Good morning. I thank you all for attending 

this field hearing. We begin this hearing now regarding the impacts of coastal erosion and flooding on the Native villages on the 

west coast of Alaska. 

I’m joined here this morning by Senator Conrad Burns of Montana. He’s on the Appropriations Committee. Senator Lisa Murkowski, my colleague, who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, 

the Indian Affairs Committee, and the Veterans Affairs Committee, 

and Senator John Sununu who serves on the Commerce Committee. 

Your commitment to take time from your busy schedules to attend these hearings illustrates a national interest on this issue, 

and we will learn more about how severe erosion has impacted 

Alaska and its people. The testimony from these hearings will be 

useful in determining how to coordinate responses and develop solutions to complex problems of erosion and flooding in Alaska. 

There will be three panels of witnesses at this hearing today and 

tomorrow. Each panel will have multiple witnesses, and to keep the 

hearing on schedule, I request that each witness speak no more 

than 8 minutes. It’s my intention to ask the Senators to withhold 

their questions until we hear the testimony of all the witnesses on 

each panel as they come forward. Based on the number of witnesses today, each panel will be allowed total time limits. Panel 1 

is allowed 80 minutes; panel 2, 60 minutes; and panel 3, 40 minutes. I hope that’s acceptable. 

Tomorrow we will hear from villagers from villages most affected 

by coastal erosion and flooding as well as one witness with commercial expertise in erosion prevention and mitigation. These hearings will try to find whether we have any solutions to the problems 

and have recommendations from the General Accounting Office—

let me back up. We will examine the findings and recommendations 
2

of the General Accounting Office report on the severe flooding and 

erosion problems faced in Native villages in Alaska. 

In May 2001 some of you attended the appropriations field hearings on the impact of climate changes in the Arctic. That hearing 

was held at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks and attracted, 

I believe, the Nation’s best scientists on the climate change. Later 

today we’ll hear from two individuals on the potential costs and implications of that climate change. 

The issue of climate change is involved because of rising temperatures, which was one of the main factors theorized in the GAO 

report on coastal erosion and flooding in Alaska. My intent at these 

hearings is to learn how we can provide greater assistance to these 

communities. 

I will now yield to my colleagues to see if they have any opening 

statements. Senator Burns, do you have a statement? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your 

kind invitation to come to Alaska. We enjoy it up here. I represent 

Montana. As far as flooding and erosion, we’ve been so damn dry 

down there we’ll take a little of it. We’re a little bit better off, but 

I know that there are challenges it imposes on the communities 

along the coast of Alaska. I’m fairly familiar with that part of the 

world up there because I’ve visited the North Slope, but I’ve never 

had the opportunity to go out on the west coast part of the State 

and would love to do that one of these days. Thank you for your 

kind invitation. I’ll look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Murkowski, do you have a statement? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM

ALASKA

Senator MURKOWSKI. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you 

for calling the hearings. I would also like to welcome Senator 

Burns and Senator Sununu. I appreciate their being here and having an opportunity to see what is going on. I appreciate Senator 

Burns’ statement, and we’re pretty dry up north, too. It’s fire season again here. 

Mr. Chairman, last year the General Accounting Office examined 

the performance of two agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

and the Natural Resources Conservation Service as they assist 

Alaska Native villages wrestling with challenges of coastal erosion. 

The GAO reported that small and remote Alaskan villages are 

denied assistance under the Corps’ flood control and continuing assistance program because they often fail to meet a cost-benefit test; 

that is to say that when you compare the cost of preventing devastating floods against the value of the public infrastructure in the 

villages, flood control loses. Those communities that might meet 

the cost-benefit analysis criteria then fail to qualify for assistance 

because they can’t provide the 25/50 percent local match that’s required under the prevailing policy. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service, like the Corps, utilizes a cost-benefit analysis in its funding decisions, but unlike the 

Corps they consider social and environmental factors when calcu-
3

lating the benefit of a project. The GAO noted that the Natural Resources Conservation Service also waives cost-sharing requirements 

when a community can’t afford them. 

The bad news for Alaska Native communities is that the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service funding programs are directed at 

addressing emergencies; in other words, one-time events rather 

than recurring programs. However, the Natural Resource Conservation Service is generous in providing technical assistance to 

Alaska Native villages under its conservation and technical assistance program. 

So the Corps of Engineers appears to be in the best position to 

help fund projects to protect our villages against coastal erosion, 

but cannot effectively carry out this role due to the strings attached 

to their funding policies. The Natural Resource Conservation Service has a funding policy that is perhaps more sensitive to the realities affecting our villages, but their authority to address the consequences of coastal erosion is limited. This is very disturbing. 

Mr. Chairman, I do have a longer opening statement that I 

would like to have included in its entirety in the record, but I 

would like to point out at this time that I hope that these hearings 

are not intended to place blame on anybody, but rather to identify 

solutions. How do we move forward in identifying the concerns 

while we’re here in these next 2 days? 

As we search for the solutions, I think we need to be aware that 

FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has the resources to rebuild that public infrastructure and to help families 

rebuild structures that are destroyed in catastrophic floods. We 

have seen this before when FEMA was called upon to address the 

consequences of flooding in Alatna, in Allakaket and in Hughes as 

they do elsewhere across the State and in the country. 

So I would hope that over the next 2 days, as we identify ways 

to prevent this destruction before it happens, we focus on that and 

not on what we do in the aftermath of a catastrophic flood. Again, 

Senator Stevens, thank you for conducting this hearing, and I look 

forward to the testimony over the next 2 days. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Sununu, do you have an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN SUNUNU, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW

HAMPSHIRE

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to be 

here with you and Senator Murkowski, with whom I was pleased 

to be elected to the Senate. I had the opportunity to see her work 

on this and a host of other issues important to Alaska. 

New Hampshire and Alaska share a lot of the same wonderful 

characteristics; a great love for the outdoors, conservation and its 

tradition, and a beautiful coastline. New Hampshire’s coastline is 

only 13 miles, not 6,000 miles, so as a result, we tend to enjoy our 

coastline 1 mile at a time. But we have the same appreciation for 

the problems that erosion and flooding can cause for the communities that live nearby. 

That’s why I’m pleased to be here to listen to the testimony, to 

learn a lot more about the problems that have been experienced 

here. I understand what the Senate can do to help these agencies 
4

that have some ability to make a difference and work together to 

improve the situation. 

Thank you very much for the invitation to be here. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much, Senator Sununu. On 

the first panel the witnesses will be Brigadier General Larry Davis, 

Division Engineer, Pacific Ocean Division of the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. John Pennington, Regional Director 

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Mr. Ralph A. Robinson, Managing Director of the Natural Resources Environment of 

the General Accounting Office; and Mr. Patrick Poe, Alaska’s Regional Administrator for the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Gentlemen, welcome. General Davis, we’ll call on you first. I 

would like you all to present your statements and not use more 

than 8 minutes, if you will, and we will have questions when the 

full panel has presented their witnesses. 

General Davis. 

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT L. DAVIS, DIVISION ENGINEER, PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION, UNITED STATES ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

ACCOMPANIED BY COLONEL TIM GALLAGHER, COMMANDER, UNITED 

STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS’ ALASKA DISTRICT

General DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the committee. I deeply appreciate this opportunity to 

appear before you to discuss the flooding and erosion issues affecting many Alaskan communities. 

I’m Brigadier General Larry Davis, the Commanding General of 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Pacific Ocean Division. Accompanying me today is Colonel Tim Gallagher, Commander of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Alaska District. My complete written statement, which I have submitted for the record, provides details on this important issue and what the Alaska District is doing 

to address flooding and erosion issues and challenges. 

With your permission, I’ll provide you with a very brief overview 

of the Pacific Ocean Division, highlight some major issues regarding flooding and erosion affecting Alaskan communities, and highlight the Corps of Engineers’ authorities and programs. 

The Pacific Ocean Division is headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. I have four district offices under my command located in Hawaii, Alaska, Japan, and Korea. All my districts have important 

military missions. In addition, my Honolulu and Alaska districts 

have a civil works mission that provides for water resources development and restoration, primarily in the areas of commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, and ecosystem 

restoration. 

It is through our Alaska District’s civil works program that we 

are keenly aware of and involved in addressing flooding and erosion problems affecting Alaskan communities, and we appreciated 

the opportunity to participate in and contribute data from our past 

and ongoing studies to GAO’s December 2003 report on this subject. 

Alaska’s coasts and riverbanks serve as the home to over 200 

Alaskan communities that utilize the rivers, coastal waters, and 

surrounding areas for subsistence. Coastal areas are subject to con-
5

stant attack from wave action, ocean currents, ice and storms. And 

riverbanks are subjected to flooding, annual and episodic ice jams 

and erosion. 

The flooding and erosion that occurs along Alaska’s shorelines 

and riverbanks can have a devastating impact on the economic, social, and cultural well-being of the Alaskan communities that are 

located along them. The villages of Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok and 

Shishmaref are examples of communities that are being forced to 

consider relocating due to severe and chronic erosion and flooding. 

Recently the Alaska District has noted an increasing number of 

requests for flooding and erosion protection assistance. This increase appears to be timed similar to observed climatological 

changes that may have an impact on flooding frequencies and erosion rates. 

Chairman STEVENS. I think it may be one of the connections 

right here causing the trouble. 

General DAVIS. As indicated in the GAO’s report, the Corps of 

Engineers administers key programs for planning and constructing 

flood and erosion control projects. These programs include our Specifically Authorized Program, Continuing Authorities Program, 

Planning Assistance to States Program, and the Flood Plain Management Services Program. To date, we have constructed eight 

flood control and eight erosion control projects in Alaska, and we 

currently have nine active flood damage reduction and 11 active 

erosion control studies underway. While we do have the technical 

capabilities and programs to address flooding and erosion problems, it is often difficult for a majority of these small and remote 

communities to meet the benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.0 or greater required for Federal participation implementing a solution. The cost 

of construction in the remote areas, weather and the lack of data, 

and the subsistence economies of the communities are major contributing factors. 

In addition, many of these communities do not have the financial 

capability to meet the required 35 percent non-Federal cost sharing 

required for the Corps of Engineers’ flood-erosion projects. We like 

to think of ourselves as problem solvers, and we have the technology and experience to find solutions to these complex problems. 

However, the title of the GAO’s report, ‘‘Alaska Native Villages, 

Most are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, But Few Qualify For 

Federal Assistance,’’ appropriately summarizes the dilemma faced 

by these Alaskan communities and the Federal agencies attempting to help them. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I’m honored to appear before you. I’d be happy to respond to any questions you may 

have. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

[The statements follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT L. DAVIS

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss erosion and flooding issues of utmost importance 

to coastal and riverine communities in Alaska. 

I am Brigadier General Larry Davis, Commander of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Pacific Ocean Division. 
6

The General Accounting Office has provided a comprehensive review of the erosion and flooding problems in many of the remote communities of the state. I hope 

that our participation in this hearing will add to and clarify some of the issues presented in this report. 

With your permission, I will provide you with a brief overview of the Pacific 

Ocean Division, review our Corps of Engineers’ flood control and erosion authorities 

and programs, review our prior and ongoing flood and erosion control projects, and 

highlight the major issues regarding flooding and erosion affecting Alaskan communities. 

PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION

The Pacific Ocean Division is headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. I have four district offices under my command located in Hawaii, Alaska, Japan, and Korea. All 

my districts have important Military Missions. In addition, my Honolulu and Alaska 

Districts have a Civil Works Mission that provides for water resources development 

and restoration, primarily in the areas of commercial navigation, flood and coastal 

storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration. 

It is through our Alaska District’s Civil Works program that we are keenly aware 

of and involved in addressing flooding and erosion problems affecting Alaskan communities and we appreciated the opportunity to participate in and contribute data 

from our past and ongoing studies to GAO’s December 2003 report on this subject. 

ALASKA FLOODING AND EROSION

Alaska’s coasts and riverbanks serve as the home to over 200 Alaskan communities that utilize the rivers, coastal waters, and surrounding areas for subsistence. 

Coastal areas are subject to constant attack from wave action, ocean currents, ice 

and storms and riverbanks are subjected to flooding, annual and episodic ice jams, 

and erosion. 

The flooding and erosion that occurs along Alaska’s shorelines and riverbanks can 

have a devastating impact on the economic, social, and cultural well-being of the 

Alaskan communities that are located along them. The villages of Kivalina, 

Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref are examples of communities that are being 

forced to consider relocating due to severe and chronic erosion and flooding. 

Recently the Alaska District has noted an increasing number of requests for flooding and erosion protection assistance. This increase appears to be timed similar to 

observed climatological changes that may have an impact on flooding frequencies 

and erosion rates. 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS AUTHORITIES

The Corps of Engineers has several authorities to address flooding and erosion 

problems. They include specific Congressional authorization, the Continuing Authorities Program, the Planning Assistance to States Program, and the Flood Plain 

Management Services Program. 

In addressing flooding and erosion problems, the Corps works closely with local, 

state, Federal, tribal, and private interests to understand the concerns represented 

by these various stakeholders. The Corps weighs the concerns, balances the needs, 

and examines the costs and benefits to determine federal interest and to make technically, environmentally, socially, economically sound decisions. 

Specifically Authorized 

Specifically authorized studies may be initiated as provided by the Rivers and 

Harbors in Alaska Study Resolution, adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Public Works on December 2, 1970. Construction of a project studied 

under this authority does, however, require specific Congressional construction authorization. Non-Federal cost sharing requirements are 50 percent for feasibility 

studies, 25 percent for preconstruction engineering and design, and 35 percent for 

construction of flooding and erosion projects. 

The 1946 Shore Protection Cost Sharing Act established Federal policy to participate in construction of projects to protect the publicly-owned or publicly used shores 

of the United States against erosion from waves and currents. 

Continuing Authorities Program 

The Continuing Authorities Program authorizes the Corps of Engineers to plan, 

design, and construct erosion and flood control projects without additional and specific congressional authorization. Most of the Alaska District’s erosion and flood control work has been conducted under one of the authorities in the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP). CAP authorities are funded nationwide and are subject to 
7

specific limits on allowable Federal expenditures. The applicable program authorities that address flooding and erosion include the following. 

—Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended.—This authorizes emergency stream bank and shoreline erosion protection for public facilities subject 

to a Federal limit of $1,000,000 per project and $15,000,000 nationwide per 

year. Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is 35 percent. 

—Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended.—This authorizes 

small flood control projects subject to a Federal limit of $7,000,000 per project 

and $50,000,000 nationwide per year. Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is 

35 percent. 

—Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, as amended.—This authorizes 

snagging and clearing for flood control subject to a Federal limit of $500,000 per 

project and $7,500,000 nationwide per year. Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is 35 percent. 

—Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, as amended.—This authorizes 

protection of shores of publicly owned property from hurricane and storm damage subject to a Federal limit of $3,000,0000 per project and $30,000,000 nationwide per year. Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is 35 percent. 

—Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968, as amended.—This authorizes 

mitigation of shoreline erosion damage cause by Federal navigation projects 

subject to a Federal limit of $5,000,0000. Non-Federal cost sharing requirement 

is at the same proportion as the associated Federal navigation project. 

Planning Assistance to States 

The Corps’ Planning Assistance to States program allows the Corps to assist 

states in the preparation of comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, 

and conservation of water and related resources of drainage basins. This may include consideration of flooding and erosion problems. There is no construction authority associated with this program. Annual Federal funding is limited to $500,000 

per state or tribe. Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is 50 percent. 

Floodplain Management Services Program 

The Corps’ Flood Plain Management Services Program allows the Corps’ to provide states and local governments with technical services and planning guidance on 

all aspects of flood plain management planning. There is no construction authority 

associated with this program. Non-Federal public entities do not have to pay for 

these services. 

Other Authorities 

Other Corps of Engineers’ authorities that exist include the following. 

—Technical Assistance—Section 55, WRDA 74.—This authority allows the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to provide technical 

and engineering assistance to non-Federal public interests in developing structural and non-structural methods of preventing damages attributable to shore 

and stream bank erosion. Section 55 provides no construction authority. NonFederal cost sharing is not required. 

—Tribal Partnership Program—Section 203, WRDA 2000.—This program authorizes feasibility studies of water resource projects that will ‘‘substantially benefit 

Indian tribes and that are located primarily within Indian country or in proximity to Alaska Native villages.’’ Section 203 has a $5,000,000 annual program 

limit and allows no more than $1,000,000 for one Indian tribe. The program 

provides no construction authority. Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is 50 

percent for feasibility studies. 

PRIOR FLOOD AND EROSION CONTROL STUDIES AND PROJECTS

To date, the Alaska District has received 63 requests for assistance with flooding 

and erosion problems from 60 communities in Alaska. Recently the number of requests for assistance with flooding, storm damage and erosion problems have increased. Of the 63 total requests, 47 have come within the last 5 years. 

We have constructed eight flood control (7-Specifically Authorized and 1-Section 

205) and eight erosion control projects (4-Congressionally Authorized and 4-Section 

14) in Alaska at 14 communities. 

Section 14 Projects 

The majority of the requests for action for river erosion or coastal storm damage 

have come in under the Section 14 Emergency Stream Bank and Shore Protection 

Authority. Forty of the 63 community requests were for assistance under the Section 

14 authority. This emergency authority authorizes the Corps to protect essential 
8

public facilities that face an imminent erosion threat. The proposed protection 

project must cost less than it would cost to relocate the facilities to be protected. 

This authority differs from other Corps programs, because a least-cost analysis is 

performed, rather than a benefit cost analysis as is required in other programs. 

Despite the number of requests, we have only constructed four projects (Bethel, 

Deering, Emmonak, and Metlakatla) under the Section 14 authority. More than half 

of the Section 14 requests resulted in no Federal project because relocation of the 

threatened structure was the least cost solution or the property at risk was private 

property. Other reasons include project costs exceeding the project or program funding limits and the financial inability of the community to provide the required 35 

percent non-Federal cost share. 

Congressionally Authorized Projects 

We have constructed seven flood control and four erosion projects through specific 

Congressional authorization. 

Alaska’s largest flood control projects are the Chena River Lakes and Tanana 

River projects that protect the 70,000 residents of the City of Fairbanks and have 

prevented millions of dollars in flood damages. These projects were specifically authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90–483. 

Other projects include erosion control structures in communities like Bethel, 

Homer, and Galena and flood control structures in Seward (Lowell Creek Tunnel), 

Skagway, Hyder (Salmon River), Talkeetna, and Juneau (Gold Creek). 

CURRENT STUDIES AND PROJECTS

The Alaska District is currently has 9 active flood damage reduction and 11 active 

erosion control studies and projects underway. They include the following. 

Barrow Storm Damage Reduction 

The Alaska District’s largest coastal storm damage reduction study is underway 

at Barrow located about 725 miles north of Anchorage, Alaska. In recent years winter storms have caused severe erosion of the shoreline. The erosion is threatening 

numerous public facilities; of particular concern is the Barrow solid waste landfill. 

Ongoing studies will obtain the environmental and engineering data necessary to 

plan and design alternative plans to reduce the storm damage. Fieldwork is currently underway to identify local sources of gravel that could be used to construct 

various alternatives including the replenishment of beach materials. 

Kaktovik Erosion and Flooding 

A reconnaissance study at Kaktovik about 650 miles north of Anchorage has identified erosion and flooding of the airport as an important concern that will be addressed by another agency. Erosion of gravesites and lands at Kaktovik is a continuing problem that may warrant further study if a cost-sharing sponsor can be 

identified. 

Kenai River Bluff Erosion 

The Kenai River is located approximately 100 miles south of Anchorage, Alaska. 

Erosion of the bluff along the Kenai River is endangering both public and private 

facilities. As directed and with funds provided by Congress in fiscal year 2002 and 

2003, we initiated and are continuing technical evaluations and reconnaissance level 

investigations of the bank stabilization needs along the Lower Kenai River. Further 

study will depend on the findings of these investigations and the prospect for developing a solution that is environmentally acceptable and supported by sound engineering designs. 

Matanuska Watershed 

The Matanuska River is 77 miles long and originates in the Chugach and 

Talkeetna Mountains and empties into the Knik Arm of Upper Cook Inlet, approximately 40 miles east of Anchorage, Alaska. With funds provided by Congress in fiscal year 2002, we initiated reconnaissance phase investigations to evaluate potential 

solutions to the erosion problems along the Matanuska River. The Matanuska Watershed reconnaissance study identified riverbank erosion as an important problem 

to address in the feasibility stage of study. Local interests are working with the 

Corps to develop the scope and estimated costs for engineering, economic, and environmental studies that would be appropriate for a feasibility study. 

McGrath Flood Damage Reduction 

McGrath is located in western Alaska approximately 225 miles northwest of Anchorage, Alaska and serves as the transportation and service center for the surrounding area. Located on a bend of the upper Kuskokwim River, McGrath is often 
9

subject to flood damages and erosion. The water supply treatment plant and important roads, businesses, and residences are in danger during high flow conditions. 

With funds provided by Congress in fiscal year 2003, we initiated reconnaissance 

studies, which are scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2004. 

Skagway River Flood Control 

Skagway is located at the northernmost end of Taiya Inlet, approximately 90 

miles northeast of Juneau, Alaska. Much of the old City of Skagway is located within the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park. An existing flood control project 

was completed by the Corps of Engineers in 1940 and consists of a 6,700-foot long 

dike on the east bank of the Skagway River and a rubble-mound containment structure 1,800 feet long across the tide flats. With funds provided by Congress in fiscal 

year 2002, we initiated reconnaissance phase investigations to evaluate Federal interest in modifications and improvements to the existing dike and containment 

structure to prevent flooding to the historic City of Skagway and the airport facilities. The reconnaissance report was completed in November 2003 and found that 

there is Federal interest in continuing with feasibility phase studies. 

Yakutat Flooding 

Yakutat is located approximately 370 miles southeast of Anchorage, Alaska. With 

fund provided by Congress in fiscal year 2004, we are initiating reconnaissance 

phase investigations to determine Federal interest in flood damage protection from 

flooding hazards created by the Hubbard Glacier near Yakutat. The Hubbard Glacier is advancing across Russel Fjord where the glacier has created an ice dam twice 

in the past 20 years. If an ice dam occurs, the water level in Russel Fjord could 

raise high enough to overflow into the Situk River similar to the overflows that have 

occurred at least twice in the last few hundred years. The Corps is cooperating with 

the U.S. Forest Service, state agencies and the city of Yakutat to evaluate potential 

ways to reduce damages to the world class Situk River fishery and nearby infrastructure including the Yakutat airport. A reconnaissance report will summarize the 

evaluation of alternatives that has occurred and determine if a Federal interest exists for more detailed studies. 

Bethel Bank Stabilization, Alaska 

Bethel is located at the mouth of the Kuskokwim River, 40 miles inland from the 

Bering Sea and approximately 400 air miles northwest of Anchorage, Alaska. In accordance with Congressional direction provided in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and 

Water Development Act, we initiated engineering activities, from within available 

funds, to extend the existing Bethel Bank Stabilization project an additional 1,200 

feet. Congress also directed the removal of sediments from Brown Slough that hamper navigation. However, it was determined that the Corps does not have authority 

for the removal of sediments from Brown Slough. The project decision document was 

completed in December 2001 and the Project Cooperation Agreement was executed 

in December 2002. The local sponsor is continuing with required real estate acquisition and construction. 

Dillingham Bank Stabilization, Alaska 

Dillingham is located approximately 330 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska. 

The Dillingham Bank Stabilization project provides 1,600 feet of sheet pile bulkhead 

to protect water and sewer lines, communication systems, homes, and businesses 

along an eroding bluff in the City of Dillingham. A Project Cooperation Agreement 

was executed in January 1998 and a construction contract was awarded in September 1998. Construction was initiated in fiscal year 1999 and was completed in 

fiscal year 2001. As directed by Congress in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water 

Development Act, we initiated work to extend the project and replace the existing 

wooden bulkhead at the city dock. In fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 we are 

continuing with preparations of plans and specifications, a project decision document, and negotiations for modifications to the existing Project Cooperation Agreement. 

Galena Bank Stabilization, Alaska 

Galena is located on the north bank of the Yukon River, 270 air miles west of 

Fairbanks, Alaska. In accordance with Congressional direction and funds provided 

in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development Act, we initiated engineering 

activities to provide additional emergency bank stabilization measures at Galena. 

The work will be accomplished under the same terms and conditions as the previous 

emergency bank stabilization project that was completed in 1987. Stream bank survey work was completed in the summer of fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, we 

worked on plans and specifications, a project decision document, and negotiations 
10

for the Project Cooperation Agreement. The Project Cooperation Agreement was executed in August 2003. Construction is scheduled for award this fiscal year. 

Planning Assistance to States 

The Corps’ Planning Assistance to the States authority is being used at Kivalina 

and Newtok in western Alaska to assist each community with plans to relocate so 

they can avoid serious erosion and flooding problems. Comprehensive community 

plans are being developed for the new village sites. Due to the lack of existing infrastructure to offload gravel, it has been a challenge to find low cost sources of gravel 

for constructing pads to prevent permafrost soils from melting under new buildings 

and for elevating structures above potential flood elevations. 

Alaska Village Erosion Technical Analysis 

As directed by Congress in fiscal year 2004, we initiated the Alaska Village Erosion Technical Analysis studies for the villages of Shishmaref, Kivalina, Newtok, 

Unalakleet, Kaktovik, Bethel, and Dillingham. A programmatic environmental impact analysis is being done for the potential relocation of Shishmaref based on specific guidance received from Congress. The studies at each village will estimate the 

damages caused by erosion, evaluate the potential ways to relocate communities 

that cannot be economically protected, and estimate when any of these villages 

would no longer be able to function due to losses caused by erosion and flooding. 

Continuing Authorities Program 

Under the Continuing Authorities Program, Alaska District has the following 

projects underway. 

Deering 

Deering is located on Kotzebue Sound at the mouth of the Inmachuk River, 57 

miles southwest of Kotzebue. It is built on a flat sand and gravel spit 300 feet wide 

and a half-mile long. Storm waves and high water threaten cultural resources along 

the village shoreline. In July of 2002 remains were uncovered by wave action during 

a storm. A state trooper visited the village to perform an on site inspection and 

made the determination that the remains were of ancient origin. Archaeologists 

from the Northern Land Use Research excavated a portion of the site to further 

verify that the remains were of human remains from ancient origin. We are currently investigating the erosion problem under the Section 14 authority to determine if there is a design solution that would cost less than performing an archaeological dig to preserve the site. 

Kwethluk 

Kwethluk is located along the banks of Kwethluk River on its junction with the 

Kuskokwim River, approximately 12 air miles east of Bethel and 390 air miles 

northwest of Anchorage. The existing streambank protection is in need of repair at 

both the upstream and downstream ends of the project. Erosion has created a hole 

approximately 7 feet high and 6–10 feet deep. The overhanging concrete is posing 

a threat to children who might be playing in the area. The stream bank adjacent 

to the city is also in need of protection. It has a 7-foot vertical bank in highly erosive 

soils that extend approximately 1 mile along the city limits. An analysis of the erosion rates along the Kwethluk River is needed to insure an appropriate long-term 

solution to the stream bank problem. There is no work being performed this year 

due to budget limits for the Section 14 authority for this fiscal year. We will request 

funding for work next year under the Section 14 authority. 

Seward 

Seward is located on Resurrection Bay, on the east coast of Kenai Peninsula, 125 

highway miles south of Anchorage. The Seward Marine Industrial Center (SMIC) 

site is located on the east side of Resurrection Bay at the south end of the SMIC 

bulkhead. Wave action has eroded the gravel fill material near the end of the bulkhead. Wave action continues to erode the gravel from behind the bridge sections and 

along the remaining unprotected shoreline. We are currently investigating the erosion problem under the Section 14 authority and are developing a design solution 

to protect the utilities in this area from the erosion. 

Shishmaref 

Shishmaref is located on Sarichef Island, in the Chukchi Sea, just north of the 

Bering Strait. It is five miles from the mainland, 126 miles north of Nome and 100 

miles southwest of Kotzebue. A fall storm has caused increased erosion along the 

beach shore threatening several public interests, including the public school. A Report recommending construction of a layered rock revetment 230 lineal feet in 

length has been approved. A Section 14 Project Cooperation Agreement is currently 
11

being developed. Federal construction funds are available with the intent of initiating construction by the end of the fiscal year 2004. 

Point Hope 

Point Hope is located near the tip of Point Hope peninsula, a large gravel spit 

that forms the western-most extension of the northwest Alaska coast, approximately 

710 miles northwest of Anchorage. With a mean sea level elevation of only 14 feet, 

wind driven storm surge and flooding impacts the village from all directions of the 

compass. During flooding events, the only escape route to high grounds is one of the 

first things to be inundated. This road is in dire need of being raised and fortified. 

The flooding also is damaging significant cultural resources located along the shore. 

We are currently investigating the erosion problem under the Section 103 authority 

to determine if there is a design solution that would be eligible for Federal participation. 

Fort Yukon 

Fort Yukon is located in the interior region of Alaska on the north bank of the 

Yukon River near its confluence with the Porcupine River. Fort Yukon lies about 

8 miles north of the Arctic Circle and 140 miles northeast of Fairbanks. The city 

is located immediately upstream of the confluence of the Yukon and Porcupine Rivers. These rivers carry large amounts of breakup ice in the spring and periodically 

an ice jam is created at the confluence of the two rivers. Ice jams at this location 

often result in an elevated river stage, which floods the low-lying areas at Fort 

Yukon. Floods are also caused by coincident increases in river stages due to surges 

in snowmelt runoff. We are currently investigating the erosion problem under the 

Section 205 authority to determine if there is a design solution that would be eligible for Federal participation. The community of Fort Yukon has indicated they 

would participate as the non-Federal sponsor for the study currently being scoped. 

Valdez 

Valdez is located on the north shore of Port Valdez, a deepwater fjord in Prince 

William Sound, approximately 305 road miles east of Anchorage. Glacier Stream 

has been narrowed to pass under a bridge at the Richardson Highway. This created 

a flooding problem in the stream and threatens the Richardson Highway and Glacier Stream Road. We are currently investigating the erosion problem under the 

Section 205 authority to determine if there is a design solution that would be eligible for Federal participation. 

CHALLENGES

While the Corps of Engineers does have the technical capabilities, authorities, and 

programs to address flooding and erosions problems, it is often difficult for the majority of these small and remote communities to meet the benefit to cost ratio of 1.0 

or greater required for Federal participation in implementing a solution. The cost 

of construction in remote areas, weather, lack of data, and the subsistence economies of the communities are major contributing factors. 

In addition, while some of these communities can meet the requirement for 35 

percent non Federal cost sharing, many do not have the financial capability to cost 

share. 

High Cost Environment 

The cost of building flood and erosion prevention structures is much higher in remote Alaska than at similar situations in the contiguous United States. Commercial 

sources of construction material, equipment, trained labor, supplies, support facilities and fuel are very limited in the remote regions of Alaska. Modes of transportation are usually limited to shallow draft barge or air transport. These are costly. 

The construction season is effectively limited to five or six months due to the extreme weather conditions. Environmental constraints also limit when work can be 

performed. The most common are restrictions to in-water work and limitations to 

armor rock extraction activities. These factors drive the cost of construction up. 

Many of the communities mentioned in the GAO report are in the YukonKuskokwim delta region (Western Alaska). In the 21,000 square mile area of the 

Yukon-Kuskokwim delta region, commercial sources for rock are very limited and 

costly (key material in most bank stabilization projects). Larger, high quality rock 

is only available at a couple of places, Cape Nome or Saint Paul, both of which are 

far away and have limited production capacity and transportation options. In some 

instances it has been more cost effective to barge material from Washington State. 

Commercial gravel sources are also very limited and typically must be barged into 

a site from 100 to 150 miles away. 
12

There is some potential for developing local sources of material but the price will 

often be equivalent to the cost of the nearest commercial source (that may be several hundred miles away) plus transportation. Contractors using these sources are 

risking the cost to bring in equipment to develop an unknown quantity and quality 

of material. This risk is reflected in their bids. 

Construction equipment is typically not available in remote areas and has to be 

barged into the site. Most transportation of equipment occurs by barge during very 

limited shipping seasons. If the equipment does not make the last barge before 

freeze-up it will sit idle (and may be vandalized) all winter. It is often six months 

or more until the next barge can make it to the site. Mobilization costs approach 

a half a million dollars on small-scale bank stabilization projects. Barge access may 

not be available, in which case the equipment must be walked cross-country in winter. This is a costly high-risk operation for a contractor. 

Trained labor, and the supplies and accommodations for labor are in short supply 

or do not exist in remote areas. Construction camps, with food and supplies shipped 

in, are the norm. They are costly. 

Fuel often needs to be shipped in as well. Many communities in remote areas 

barge in only as much fuel as can be stored and that they can afford to buy in the 

fall before the rivers and inlets freeze. Fuel supplies may be very limited in the 

spring. To get an early start on the limited construction season, contractors may arrive in an area in early spring and find limited fuel and the next fuel barge is not 

scheduled until June when the river is navigable. These contractors often resort to 

flying their fuel in on small planes, 150 to 200 gallons at a time. Larger deliveries 

are not possible given the size of the airports associated with these communities. 

Gasoline in Shishmaref currently costs over $5.00 a gallon. 

When a piece of equipment breaks down it may require a week to get parts out 

of Anchorage or Seattle. If the personnel at the site cannot repair the equipment, 

a mechanic may have to be flown to the site to perform the repair. 

The expense of construction in much of Alaska is directly related to the remoteness of the sites. This translates into high cost for transportation, materials and 

labor and a premium for the high risk associated with constructing the project. All 

of these items are reflected in the limited number of bids received on a project. 

Local Economy 

Of the authorities that the Corps of Engineers has to address flooding and erosion 

problems in Alaskan Native communities, all require cost sharing by the local sponsor. While some communities are financially capable, many of the small communities do not have the ability to cost share even the small Section 14 projects that 

require a local cost share of 35 percent. Their economies are not wholly cash-based, 

so local governments have a very limited tax base. Many of these communities have 

a high percentage of the population living ‘‘below the poverty level.’’ These communities have a subsistence economy that is often more robust than the cash economy 

measured and evaluated by the National Census. There are many healthy and socially fulfilled people in these communities living ‘‘below the poverty level.’’

Other sources of funds for the required local cost share have been difficult to obtain. Communities have applied for Community Block Development Grant (CBDG) 

funds toward construction of erosion control projects, but they were unsuccessful. In 

recent years, the District’s only cost-shared erosion control projects are in Barrow, 

Bethel, and Homer, all large hub communities that have financial resources, and 

Shishmaref—where the school district has obtained funds from the State to preserve 

the school infrastructure. Our other erosion control projects, Dillingham and Galena, 

were specifically authorized by Congress at 100 percent federal expense. 

Data Collection 

The Corps of Engineers is uniquely positioned to provide ongoing support to communities in danger of flooding, coastal erosion and other natural disasters. For example, the Floodplain Management Services work performed by the Alaska District 

provides technical assistance to many communities at risk to flooding. This program 

helps record maximum high water marks in many areas that are affected by both 

high flow stage and ice jam flooding. These records correlate with engineering work 

to define real world flood levels for many communities. 

However, there are still significant flooding and coastal data gaps throughout 

Alaska. Little historical or detailed data exists for the coastal areas north of the 

Aleutian Islands and in most remote areas. The lack of reliable data can result in 

higher costs for flooding and erosion solutions because designers must be conservative when working with little or no data. Long term and reliable data collection 

and modeling are essential to help designers to provide more cost-effective designs, 

and to develop a better understanding of hazards that exist for these communities. 
13

Both the east and west coasts of the contiguous United States have benefited from 

regional coastal studies that have developed design data and models for extreme 

storm events and typical yearly wave climates. These types of data collection studies 

and models are necessary and essential for the State of Alaska, which has over half 

of the total national coastline. 

CONCLUSION

We like to think of ourselves as problem solvers and we have the technology and 

experience to find solutions to these complex problems. However, the title of the 

GAO’s report, ‘‘Alaska Native Villages, Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, 

but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance,’’ appropriately summarizes the dilemma 

faced by these Alaskan communities and the federal agencies attempting to help 

them. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my portion of our testimony, and I am again honored to appear before you. 

At this time, I am prepared to respond to any questions you or the Committee 

may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH

NELSON LAGOON EROSION CONTROL PROJECT

Nelson Lagoon, like some other coastal communities in Alaska, has an erosion 

problem. Climate change is blamed for the lack of protection, in that in the past 

the ice pack protected the community’s shoreline during severe winter storms. The 

warming trend of the last 10–15 years has eliminated the ice pack and exposed the 

shoreline throughout the winter seasons. Last winter alone, more than four feet of 

beach was lost. Residents further speculate that the Alaska Department of Transportation’s excavation of beach sand in another location on the spit (for airport construction) accentuated the problem. Regardless of cause, approximately one mile of 

shoreline at the community’s doorstep is rapidly eroding and ten homes are at risk. 

In 1986, a contractor came in to ‘‘fix’’ the erosion problem using gabion baskets 

filled with rocks. However, the rocks were too small with respect to the size of the 

gabion mesh and the rocks fell out, were scattered along the beach by wave activity 

and were eventually washed away. 

In addition to the unprotected section of shoreline, another ‘‘seawall’’—a wooden 

barrier that ran in front of several homes along the beach—is not working. Nelson 

Lagoon has a normal tidal range of approximately 18 feet, with storms the tides are 

in the range of 20–22 feet. Because the wooden barrier has no weight and is not 

anchored, it floats during high tides and during storms the waves simply roll over 

it. Thus, while it was originally intended to dissipate waves before they reach the 

shore, it is not effective. 

Residents of one house along the beach have, in desperation, attempted to fashion 

their own erosion control. The fisherman head of house gathered rocks from an unknown location outside the community and filled a series of old plastic fish totes 

with rocks, bolting them together for stability. The makeshift ‘‘seawall’’ is approximately six feet wide by fifteen feet long. It is crude but apparently effective. This 

makeshift solution might be suggested for other homes along the beach, except that 

Nelson Lagoon has no source of rock and fish totes are not affordable for every 

household. 

The Aleutians East Borough has received $100,000 of Coastal Impact Assistance 

Program grant funds to provide a demonstration erosion control project. The project 

combines local labor and equipment with a new technology called ‘‘Geotubes’’. This 

summer 400 feet of sand-filled fabric tubes will be placed along the beach in Nelson 

Lagoon in an engineered position. The site has been surveyed and will be surveyed 

again one year and two years after the Geotubes are in place to determine effectiveness. This successful project will provide a model of erosion control that may be 

adopted or adapted by other coastal communities and used more extensively in Nelson Lagoon. If unsuccessful, the report will document the failure of the Geotubes 

for other considering their options for erosion control. 

The Aleutians East Borough requests continued support for identifying areas and 

causes of erosion in Nelson Lagoon and evaluating the Geotube Project and other 

erosion control options.

Chairman STEVENS. Our next witness is John Pennington, Regional Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

John, good morning. 
14

STATEMENT OF JOHN PENNINGTON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, U.S. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

ACCOMPANIED BY CARL COOK, DIVISION DIRECTOR, FLOOD INSURANCE MITIGATION DIVISION, U.S. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Mr. PENNINGTON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of 

the committee. Thank you for inviting us here this morning. 

I’m John Pennington, the Regional Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Region 10, located in Bothell, Washington. Our four States 

incorporate areas of Alaska, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. On 

behalf of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, we 

welcome and appreciate the invitation to appear today before the 

Committee on Appropriations. It is a distinct honor and privilege 

to be here. 

With me today is Carl Cook, who is our Division Director for our 

Flood Insurance Mitigation Division. He’s available to answer any 

technical questions as it relates to FEMA policy. As you well know, 

FEMA is the lead Federal agency responsible for coordinating disaster response, recovery, and mitigation efforts following the disasters and emergencies that are declared by the President. 

STAFFORD ACT ASSISTANCE

Our programs are made available to communities through our 

State partner organizations, and in this State it is the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. They are 

intended to supplement the response activities and recovery programs of States. The programs are authorized by the Robert T. 

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, commonly 

referred to as the Stafford Act. The Stafford Act is widely known 

as the authority by which programs are made available following 

disaster declarations. 

There is a myriad of assistances available under the Stafford Act, 

and I’d like to point out a couple of them that I think would be of 

interest to you. First, the Public Assistance Program, which provides assistance for the restoration of public and certain private 

nonprofit facilities that are damaged by an event, as well as the 

reimbursement of costs associated with emergency protective measures and debris removal. 

The second program is Individual Assistance, which helps individuals and families ensure their essential needs are met after disasters and that they can begin the often long road to successful recovery. 

The third and fourth mitigation programs; the Hazard Mitigation 

Grant Program, which I’ll discuss in detail in a moment, as well 

as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, which is authorized under 

the Stafford Act. 

FEMA’s programs are primarily designed to assist States and 

communities in carrying out their responsibilities and their priorities. Our assistance is available in varying forms, such as grants, 

as well as in both technical and planning assistance. 

Before I get into the area of programs, I think it’s interesting to 

point out that the success of FEMA, both in this region and nationwide, is really built on our partnerships in the State, tribal, and 
15

private sectors. In this State we have been very fortunate to deal 

with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency 

Management, in particular, Commissioner Campbell—General 

Craig Campbell, and Dave Liebersbach, who is the Director of the 

Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. We have forged what can only be described as a very strong 

professional working relationship with them and we feel really fortunate to have them as a partner. 

Considering the subject of ‘‘Alaska Native Villages Affected by 

Flooding and Erosion,’’ I’m going to focus on three of our programs 

that I believe can be available to the State of Alaska and the Native villages in their efforts to address the complex challenges of 

flooding and erosion. 

PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAM

First, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. It was authorized by 

Congress under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which was 

signed on October 30 of that year. This program is available to 

communities through the State emergency management organizations and is designed to fund the most competitive mitigation 

projects and planning efforts of States and communities, as are 

identified and prioritized in State and local mitigation plans. The 

development and adoption of these State and local mitigation plans 

is required under the Stafford Act as a result of the legislative 

amendments of 2000. 

Funding for this competitive grant program is not triggered by 

a Presidential Disaster Declaration, rather it is funded through the 

annual appropriations process. All States and communities 

throughout the Nation that have FEMA-approved mitigation plans 

are eligible to apply for the program. Accordingly, the Pre-Disaster 

Mitigation Program will help sustain an enhanced national mitigation effort year to year, as opposed to previous years when FEMA 

mitigation assistance was generally only available after a disaster 

declaration has taken place. 

Examples of projects funded under the program include the development of all hazard mitigation plans, seismic retrofitting of 

critical public buildings, and acquisition or relocation of flood-prone 

properties located in the floodplain, just to name a few. All projects 

submitted are developed at the State or local level, must be costeffective, and are approved following a nationally competitive peerreview process. 

HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM

Second is our Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. It’s available to 

States and communities following Presidential Disaster Declarations. It’s quite similar to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program just 

described, though it is only available after a disaster declaration 

and is available only for the State in which the declaration was 

made. Further, the amount of assistance available under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is a percentage of FEMA’s assistance made available under the response and recovery programs, 

specifically 7.5 percent of the total projected expenditures for the 

disaster grants. Essentially, the greater the losses an affected State 

incurs, the greater the hazard mitigation assistance available. 
16

As with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, all projects are developed at the State or local level, need to be cost effective, and are 

recommended by the State in accordance with the State Hazard 

Mitigation Plan. Again, examples of projects funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program include the development of all hazard mitigation plans, the seismic retrofitting, et cetera. 

FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Third, FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. It is authorized for mitigating structures insured by the National Flood Insurance Program within a community participating in that particular program. Projects include the elevation, relocation, and acquisition of flood-prone structures. Because this program is funded 

by monies collected from policyholders, the recent focus of the program has been on mitigating repetitive loss structures in order to 

reduce the drain on the actual fund itself. Repetitive loss structures are defined as those insured structures where two or more insurance claims have been filed in any 10-year period. 

There are two important points that I’d like to bring to the committee’s attention. One—and this is regarding the Flood Mitigation 

Assistance Program. One, many of the remote Alaskan communities vulnerable to flooding and erosion are not currently in areas 

mapped for flood hazards and are not participating in the NFIP, 

which is a requirement for consideration under the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. 

Second, in fiscal year 1998, $600,000 of assistance was actually 

provided to Shishmaref under the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program for bank protection and the elevation and relocation of approximately nine residences. This assistance was provided, however, prior to the policy change that required all projects to be targeted at NFIP repetitive loss structures. 

In summary, FEMA may provide assistance to Alaskan Native 

villages affected by flooding and erosion primarily in the areas of 

mitigation planning and project grants. I will ensure that our mitigation staff will certainly do anything that it can in the areas of 

PDM, HMGP and NFIP to accomplish that. 

What I’d like to leave with you is—and I think Senator Murkowski’s comments are very appropriate—that a lot of times FEMA 

does come in afterwards, and I think we are limited by the Stafford 

Act in so many cases. But if something does occur in those communities, rest assured that we are there to implement the full breadth 

of the Stafford Act, its policies and programs to ensure that those 

communities are taken care of. 

Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN E. PENNINGTON

Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee, I am John E. Pennington, Regional Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) Region 10 Office located in Bothell, Washington. On 

behalf of FEMA, and the Department of Homeland Security, we welcome and appreciate the invitation to appear today before the Committee on Appropriations. It is 

a distinct honor and privilege to be here today. 
17

As you all well know, FEMA is the lead federal agency responsible for coordinating disaster response, recovery, and mitigation efforts following disasters and 

emergencies declared by the President. Our programs are made available to communities through our state partner organizations, and are intended to supplement the 

response activities and recovery programs of states. These programs are authorized 

under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, commonly referred to as the ‘‘Stafford Act.’’ The Stafford Act is widely known as the 

authority by which programs are made available following disaster declarations. 

Assistance that is made available to states, communities, and individuals following disasters include: 

—The Public Assistance program, which provides assistance for the restoration of 

public and certain private non-profit facilities damaged by an event, and the reimbursement of the costs associated with emergency protective measures and 

debris removal; 

—The Individual Assistance programs, which help individuals and families ensure 

their essential needs are met after disasters and that they can begin the road 

to successful recovery; and 

—The Hazard Mitigation Grant program, which I will discuss in detail in a moment. 

Additionally, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program is authorized under the Stafford Act. 

FEMA’s programs are designed to assist states and communities in carrying out 

their responsibilities and priorities. Our assistance is available in varying forms, 

such as grants, technical assistance, and planning assistance. 

Before I discuss the specific programs applicable to the topic of this hearing, I 

must point out that the success of FEMA and our programs is dependent on a 

strong professional partnership with state emergency management offices. Thanks 

to the leadership of Major General Craig Campbell, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, and Dave Liebersbach, Director of the 

Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, we have forged 

a strong and lasting professional partnership that ensures successful emergency 

management for Alaskan communities and citizens. FEMA greatly appreciates their 

leadership, professionalism, and dedication. 

Considering the subject of ‘‘Alaska Native Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion,’’ I will focus on three of FEMA’s programs that could be available to the state 

of Alaska and the Alaskan Native villages in their efforts to address the complex 

challenges of flooding and erosion. 

First, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program was authorized by Congress under the 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which was signed into law on October 30, 2000. 

This program is available to communities through the state emergency management 

organizations, and is designed to fund the most competitive mitigation projects and 

planning efforts of states and communities, as identified and prioritized in state and 

local mitigation plans. The development and adoption of these state and local mitigation plans is required under the Stafford Act as a result of the legislative amendments of 2000. Funding for this competitive grant program is not triggered by a 

Presidential Disaster Declaration; rather it is funded through the annual appropriations process. All states and communities throughout the nation that have FEMAapproved mitigation plans are eligible to apply for the program. Accordingly, the 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation program will help sustain an enhanced national mitigation 

effort year-to-year, as opposed to previous years when FEMA mitigation assistance 

was generally only available when a disaster was declared in a state. 

Examples of projects funded under the program include the development of allhazard mitigation plans, the seismic retrofitting of critical public buildings, and acquisition or relocation of flood-prone properties located in the floodplain, just to 

name a few. All projects submitted are developed at the state or local level, must 

be cost-effective, and are approved following a nationally competitive peer-review 

process. 

Second, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is available to states and communities following Presidential Disaster Declarations. This program is quite similar to 

the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program just described, though it is available only after 

a Disaster is declared, and is available only for the state in which the declaration 

was made. Further, the amount of assistance available under the Hazard Mitigation 

Grant Program is a percentage of FEMA’s assistance made available under the response and recovery programs—specifically 7.5 percent of the total projected expenditures for the disaster grants. Essentially, the greater the losses an affected state 

incurs, the greater the hazard mitigation assistance available. 

As with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, all projects are developed at the 

state or local level, must be cost-effective, and are recommended by the state in ac-
18

cordance with the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Again, examples of projects funded 

under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program include the development of all-hazards 

mitigation plans, the seismic retrofitting of critical public buildings, and acquisition 

or relocation of flood-prone properties located in the floodplain. 

Third, FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance program is authorized for mitigating 

structures insured by the National Flood Insurance Program within a community 

participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. Projects include the elevation, relocation, and acquisition of flood prone structures. Because this program 

is funded by monies collected from policyholders, the recent focus of the program 

has been on mitigating repetitive loss structures in order to reduce the drain on the 

National Flood Insurance Fund. Repetitive loss structures are those insured structures where two or more insurance claims have been filed in any 10-year period. 

There are two important points I must mention related to the potential eligibility 

of projects under the Flood Mitigation Assistance program: (1) Many of the remote 

Alaskan communities vulnerable to flooding and erosion are not currently in areas 

mapped for flood hazards and are not participating in the NFIP, which is a requirement for consideration under the Flood Mitigation Assistance program, even in 

unmapped areas; and (2) In fiscal year 1998, $600,000 of assistance was provided 

to Shishmaref under the Flood Mitigation Assistance program for bank protection 

and the elevation and relocation of approximately nine residences. This assistance 

was provided prior to the policy change that required all projects to be targeted at 

NFIP repetitive loss structures. 

In summary, FEMA may provide assistance to Alaskan Native Villages affected 

by flooding and erosion primarily in the areas of mitigation planning and project 

grants. I will ensure that the dedicated mitigation staff of FEMA will continue to 

work with the state of Alaska to identify and provide technical assistance in the development of cost-effective projects for consideration under the Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs and, for communities participating in 

the National Flood Insurance Program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. 

Finally, if one or more communities experience significant flooding and a Major Disaster were declared, please be assured that the full breadth of our Stafford Act programs would become available. FEMA would ensure the recovery and mitigation 

programs would be provided with the greatest of coordination and allowable flexibility to ensure the long-term plans of the communities are considered, to include 

the potential relocation of certain structures and facilities. 

In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to represent the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security before the Committee 

on Appropriations. I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Chairman STEVENS. Our next witness is Mr. Robert A. Robinson, 

Managing Director of the Natural Resources and Environment for 

the United States General Accounting Office. Rob. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ROBINSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Mr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s always a pleasure 

to come to Alaska for any reason, and it’s a particular privilege to 

be able to discuss the findings of our December 2003 report on 

flooding and erosion problems in Alaska villages. Joining me today 

is Jack Malcolm, who is GAO’s expert on Federal Native American 

programs and the Stafford Act and who worked on this project, as 

well as our ongoing work for you looking at rights in the States. 

Our review of Alaska Native village flooding was undertaken in 

response to a congressional mandate set forth in the conference report on the 2003 military construction appropriation. It had four 

distinct objectives. First, to determine the extent of the flooding 

and erosion problem. Second, to identify Federal and State programs that are available to address the problems. Three, to determine how nine specific villages were responding to their particular 

problems, and, finally, to identify alternatives for the Congress to 

consider in providing assistance to the villages. Respecting the time 

available, let me just hit the highlights of what we found. 
19

For those interested in a fuller discussion, there are some hard 

copies available in the back of the room as well. 

First, flooding and erosion affects the vast majority of Alaska Native villages. The affected villages are in every region of the State, 

specifically almost 90 percent or 184 out of 213 villages face flooding and erosion problems of some sort. Our findings are consistent 

with State studies in the early 1980s that found a similar count. 

Unfortunately, while many such problems are long-standing, it 

appears that they are getting worse due in part to rising temperatures. The cost to address these problems could easily exceed $1 

billion. 

Second, numerous national programs managed by at least seven 

Federal agencies are available to respond to the flooding and erosion problems as discussed. Multiple Alaska State programs are 

also available. The principal programs are administered by the 

Army Corps of Engineers and the Agriculture Department’s Natural Resources and Conservation Services, DAT- and HUD-run 

multiple programs, and of course, as you heard, FEMA runs relative programs as well. 

The good news is that many programs exist. The bad news is 

that the villages often do not meet the key eligibility requirements 

to qualify for assistance. This is occurring for two main reasons: 

One, the expected cost of projects to address the problems often exceed the maximum required benefit. The main Federal programs 

require maximum benefits to exceed project costs before funding 

can be provided. This legal requirement is set forth in the Flood 

Control Act of 1936. 

Second, villages often cannot come up with the funds needed to 

satisfy cost-share requirements. As you’ve heard earlier, the Corps 

of Engineers generally requires that local communities can fund between 25 and 50 percent of flood control projects. Native villages, 

of course, do not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars that 

could be necessary to meet this obligation. 

The State of Alaska has jumped in on many occasions in the past 

to fulfill that obligation, but State budgets are getting short as 

well. 

Relative to the third objective: Of the nine villages that we reviewed, four, Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok and Shishmaref are in 

imminent danger and are making plans to relocate at potentially 

very high costs. The cost estimates to relocate Kivalina’s 388 residents have ranged from $100 million to well over $400 million. No 

estimates are available for Newtok, Shishmaref and Koyukuk, but 

the United States Corps of Engineers is actively starting a number 

of studies to develop cost estimates. 

The other five villages, Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Point Hope, 

and Unalakleet, are considering other alternatives, such as protecting the infrastructure or supplementing existing seawalls. I believe representatives of each one of these nine villages will be 

speaking tomorrow. 

Finally, we presented four options for the Congress to consider 

as it deliberates over how and to what extent Federal programs 

could readily respond to the flooding and erosion problems here. 

They are, in order, expanding the role of the Denali Commission 

to include flooding and erosion control among its authorized activi-
20

1Pub. L. No. 105–277, tit. III, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). 

2 H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 107–731, at 15 (2002). 

3 U.S. General Accounting Office, Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and 

Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance, GAO–04–142 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2003). 

ties; directing Federal agencies, particularly the Corps and main 

NRC programs, to include a value for social and environmental factors in their cost-benefit calculations, not just a consideration for 

flood and erosion control projects in Alaska Native villages; the 

programs waiving the Federal cost-sharing requirement for flooding and erosion projects in Alaska villages and, finally, authorizing 

villages to consolidate or bundle funds from multiple Federal agencies and programs to address the problems or satisfy local costshare requirements. 

Obviously, considering such alternatives is a policy decision resting with the Congress, and we did not weigh in on which, if any, 

option should be chosen. As needs and potentially other options are 

raised, however, budgetary costs as well as the implications of any 

program changes made for Alaska villages would have for the rest 

of the Nation the precedent-setting aspect would have to be considered. 

Mr. Chairman, there is much more we could say and discuss on 

the subject, but let me close here and just mention that Jeff and 

I are available and happy to respond to any questions you may 

have at the appropriate time. 

Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ROBINSON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to 

discuss our work on Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion. As you 

know, Alaska’s shorelines and riverbanks serve as home to over 200 Native villages 

whose inhabitants generally hunt and fish for subsistence. However, these shorelines and riverbanks can be subject to periodic, yet severe flooding and erosion. 

Coastal and river flooding and erosion cause millions of dollars of property damage 

in Alaska Native villages, damaging or destroying homes, public buildings, and airport runways. Several federal and state agencies are directly or indirectly involved 

in providing assistance for flooding and erosion in Alaska. In addition to government 

agencies, the Denali Commission, created by Congress in 1998, is charged with addressing crucial needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly isolated Alaska Native villages, although it is not directly responsible for responding to flooding and 

erosion.1

The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the military construction appropriation 

bill directed GAO to study Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion.2

In December 2003, we reported on Alaska Native villages’ access to federal flooding 

and erosion programs.3 These programs are administered by several federal agencies, but principally by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Agriculture Department’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. Our report discussed four alternatives that could help mitigate the barriers that villages face in obtaining federal 

services. Our testimony today is based on that report and focuses on (1) the number 

of Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion, (2) the extent to which 

federal assistance has been provided to those villages, (3) the efforts of nine villages 

to respond to flooding and erosion, and (4) alternatives that Congress may wish to 

consider when providing assistance for flooding and erosion of Alaska Native villages. 

To meet these objectives, we reviewed federal and state flooding and erosion studies and project documents and interviewed federal and state agency officials and 

representatives from nine Alaska Native villages. We also visited four of the nine 

villages. While the conference report directed us to include at least six villages in 

our study—Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Point Hope, and Unalakleet—we 
21

added three more—Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref—based on discussions with 

congressional staff and with federal and state officials familiar with flooding and 

erosion problems. Our December 2003 report, on which this testimony is based, was 

prepared in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary, we reported the following: 

—First, 184 out of 213, or 86 percent of Alaska Native villages experience some 

level of flooding and erosion, according to federal and state officials in Alaska. 

Native villages on the coast or along rivers have long been subject to both annual and episodic flooding and erosion. Various studies and reports indicate 

that coastal villages in Alaska are becoming more susceptible to flooding and 

erosion in part because rising temperatures delay formation of protective shore 

ice, leaving the villages vulnerable to fall storms. For example, the barrier island village of Shishmaref, which is less than 1,320 feet wide, lost 125 feet of 

beach to erosion during an October 1997 storm. In addition, villages in low-lying 

areas along riverbanks or in river deltas are susceptible to flooding and erosion 

caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, rising sea levels, and heavy rainfall. 

—Second, small and remote Alaska Native villages often fail to qualify for assistance under federal flooding and erosion programs because they do not meet program eligibility criteria. For example, according to the Corps’ guidelines for 

evaluating water resource projects, the Corps generally cannot undertake a 

project when the economic costs exceed the expected benefits. With few exceptions, Alaska Native villages’ requests for assistance under this program are denied because the project costs usually outweigh expected economic benefits as 

currently defined. Even villages that meet the Corps’ cost/benefit criteria may 

still fail to qualify if they cannot meet cost-share requirements for the project. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Watershed Protection and Flood 

Prevention Program also requires a cost/benefit analysis similar to that of the 

Corps. As a result, few Alaska Native villages qualify for assistance under this 

program. However, the Natural Resources Conservation Service has other programs that have provided limited assistance to these villages—in part because 

these programs consider additional social and environmental factors in developing their cost/benefit analysis. 

—Third, of the nine villages that we reviewed, four—Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, 

and Shishmaref—are in imminent danger from flooding and erosion and are 

making plans to relocate; the remaining villages are taking other actions. 

Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref are working with relevant federal agencies 

to determine the suitability of possible relocation sites, while Koyukuk is in the 

early stages of planning for relocation. Because of the high cost of materials and 

transportation in remote parts of Alaska, the cost of relocation for these villages 

is expected to be high. The five villages not currently planning to relocate—Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Point Hope, and Unalakleet—are in various stages of responding to their flooding and erosion problems. For example, two of these villages, Kaktovik and Point Hope, are studying ways to prevent flooding of specific infrastructure, such as the airport runway. 

—Fourth, federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska Native village representatives that we spoke with identified the following three alternatives that could 

help mitigate barriers to villages’ obtaining federal services: (1) expand the role 

of the Denali Commission to include responsibility for managing a new flooding 

and erosion assistance program, (2) direct the federal agencies to consider social 

and environmental factors in their cost benefit analyses for these projects, and 

(3) waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for flooding and erosion programs for Alaska Native villages. In addition, we identified as a fourth alternative the bundling of funds from various agencies to address flooding and erosion problems in Alaska Native villages. While we did not determine the cost 

or the national policy implications associated with any of these alternatives, 

these costs and implications are important considerations in determining the 

appropriate level of federal services that should be available to respond to flooding and erosion in Alaska Native villages. Consequently, in our report we suggested the Congress consider directing relevant federal agencies and the Denali 

Commission to assess the feasibility of each of the alternatives, as appropriate. 

In commenting on our report, the Denali Commission and two federal agencies 

raised questions about expanding the Denali Commission’s role to cover flooding 

and erosion. While each of these entities recognized the need for improved coordination of federal efforts to address flooding and erosion in Alaska Native villages, none of them provided any specific suggestions on how this should be accomplished or by whom. As a result, we continue to believe that expanding the 

role of the commission is a viable alternative. 
22

4The size is determined by the average rate of flow (discharge at the mouth).

BACKGROUND

Alaska encompasses an area of about 365 million acres—more than the combined 

area of the next three largest states of Texas, California, and Montana. The state 

is bound on three sides by water, and its coastline, which stretches about 6,600 

miles (excluding island shorelines, bays and fjords) and accounts for more than half 

of the entire U.S. coastline, varies from rocky shores, sandy beaches, and high cliffs 

to river deltas, mud flats, and barrier islands. The coastline constantly changes 

through wave action, ocean currents, storms, and river deposits and is subject to 

periodic, yet often severe, erosion. Alaska also has more than 12,000 rivers, including three of the ten largest in the country: the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Copper Rivers.4 (See fig. 1.) While these and other rivers provide food, transportation, and 

recreation for people, as well as habitat for fish and wildlife, their waters also shape 

the landscape. In particular, ice jams on rivers and flooding of riverbanks during 

spring breakup change the contour of valleys, wetlands, and human settlements. 

FIGURE 1. Map of Alaska Showing Major Rivers, Oceans, and Mountain Ranges 

Permafrost (permanently frozen subsoil) is found over approximately 80 percent 

of Alaska. It is deepest and most extensive on the Arctic Coastal Plain and decreases in depth further south, eventually becoming discontinuous. In northern 

Alaska, where the permafrost is virtually everywhere, most buildings are elevated 

to minimize the amount of heat transferred to the ground to avoid melting the permafrost. However, rising temperatures in recent years have led to widespread thawing of the permafrost, causing serious damage. As permafrost melts, land slumps 

and erodes, buildings and runways sink, and bulk fuel tank areas are threatened. 

(See fig. 2.)
23

5The Corps may study and construct erosion protection and flood control structures, provided 

it receives authority and appropriations from Congress to do so. In addition to building structures, the Corps may also consider and implement non-structural and relocation alternatives.

FIGURE 2. Sea Erosion at Shishmaref (June 2003) 

Rising temperatures have also affected the thickness, extent, and duration of sea 

ice that forms along the western and northern coasts. Loss of sea ice leaves coasts 

more vulnerable to waves, storm surges, and erosion. When combined with the 

thawing of permafrost along the coast, loss of sea ice seriously threatens coastal 

Alaska Native villages. Furthermore, loss of sea ice alters the habitat and accessibility of many of the marine mammals that Alaska Natives depend upon for subsistence. As the ice melts or moves away early, walruses, seals, and polar bears move 

with it, taking themselves too far away to be hunted. 

Federal, state, and local government agencies share responsibility for controlling 

and responding to flooding and erosion. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has responsibility for planning and constructing streambank and shoreline erosion protection and flood control structures under a specific set of requirements.5 The Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible 

for protecting small watersheds. The Continuing Authorities Program, administered 

by the Corps, and the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, administered by NRCS, are the principal programs available to prevent flooding and control erosion. Table 1 below lists and describes the five authorities under the Corps’ 

Continuing Authorities Program that address flooding and erosion, while table 2 

identifies the main NRCS programs that provide assistance for flooding and erosion. 

TABLE 1.—AUTHORITIES THAT ADDRESS FLOODING AND EROSION UNDER THE CORPS’ 

CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM 

Program authority Description 

Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 ........................... For emergency streambank and shoreline erosion protection

for public facilities. 

Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 ......................... Authorizes flood control projects. 

Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 ......................... Authorizes flood control activities. 

Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 .................. Protect shores of publicly owned property from hurricane 

and storm damage. 

Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 .................. Mitigate shoreline erosion damage caused by federal navigation projects. 

Source: GAO analysis of Corps program information. 
24

In addition to the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program, other Corps authorities 

that may address problems related to flooding and erosion include the following: 

—Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, which provides authority for the Corps to assist states in the preparation of comprehensive plans 

for the development, utilization, and conservation of water and related resources of drainage basins. 

—Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960, which allows the Corps’ Flood 

Plain Management Services’ Program to provide states and local governments 

technical services and planning guidance that is needed to support effective 

flood plain management.

TABLE 2.—NRCS PROGRAMS THAT RESPOND TO FLOODING AND EROSION 

Program Description 

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program .............. Provides funding for projects that control erosion and prevent flooding. Limited to watersheds that are less than 

250,000 acres. 

Emergency Watershed Protection Program ............................... Provides assistance where there is some imminent threat—

usually from some sort of erosion caused by river flooding. 

Conservation Technical Assistance Program ............................ Provides technical assistance to communities and individuals to solve natural resource problems including reducing erosion, improving air and water quality, and maintaining or restoring wetlands and habitat. 

Source: GAO analysis of NRCS program information. 

A number of other federal agencies, such as the Departments of Transportation, 

Homeland Security (Federal Emergency Management Agency), and Housing and 

Urban Development, also have programs that can assist Alaska Native villages in 

responding to the consequences of flooding by funding tasks such as moving homes, 

repairing roads and boardwalks, or rebuilding airport runways. In additional to government agencies, the Denali Commission, created by Congress in 1998, while not 

directly responsible for responding to flooding and erosion, is charged with addressing crucial needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly isolated Alaska Native 

villages. 

On the state side, Alaska’s Division of Emergency Services responds to state disaster declarations dealing with flooding and erosion when local communities request 

assistance. The Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development helps 

communities reduce losses and damage from flooding and erosion. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities funds work to protect runways 

from erosion. Local governments such as the North Slope Borough have also funded 

erosion control and flood protection projects. 

MOST ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES ARE AFFECTED TO SOME EXTENT BY FLOODING AND

EROSION

Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, of Alaska Native villages to some extent, according to studies and information provided to us by federal 

and Alaska state officials. The 184 affected villages consist of coastal and river villages throughout the state. (See fig. 3.) Villages on the coast are affected by flooding 

and erosion from the sea. For example, when these villages are not protected by sea 

ice, they are at risk of flooding and erosion from storm surges. In the case of 

Kivalina, the community has experienced frequent erosion from sea storms, particularly in late summer or fall. These storms can result in a sea level rise of 10 feet 

or more, and when combined with high tide, the storm surge becomes even greater 

and can be accompanied by waves containing ice. Communities in low-lying areas 

along riverbanks or in river deltas are susceptible to flooding and erosion caused 

by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, rising sea levels and heavy rainfall.
25

6This report was prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, 

the predecessor of the Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development. 

FIGURE 3. Locations of 184 Alaska Native Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion 

Flooding and erosion are long-standing problems in Alaska. In Bethel, Unalakleet, 

and Shishmaref for example, these problems have been well documented dating 

back to the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, respectively. The state has made several efforts 

to identify communities affected by flooding and erosion over the past 30 years. In 

1982, a state contractor developed a list of Alaska communities affected by flooding 

and erosion.6 This list identified 169 of the 213 Alaska Native villages, virtually the 

same villages identified by federal and state officials that we consulted in 2003. In 

addition, the state appointed an Erosion Control Task Force in 1983 to investigate 

and inventory potential erosion problems and to prioritize erosion sites by severity 

and need. In its January 1984 final report, the task force identified a total of 30 

priority communities with erosion problems. Of these 30 communities, 28 are Alaska 

Native villages. Federal and state officials that we spoke with in 2003 also identified 

almost all of the Native communities given priority in the 1984 report as still needing assistance. 

While most Alaska Native villages are affected to some extent by flooding and erosion, quantifiable data are not available to fully assess the severity of the problem. 

Federal and Alaska state agency officials that we contacted could agree on which 

three or four villages experience the most flooding and erosion, but they could not 

rank flooding and erosion in the remaining villages by high, medium, or low severity. These agency officials said that determining the extent to which villages have 

been affected by flooding and erosion is difficult because Alaska has significant data 

gaps. These gaps occur because remote locations lack monitoring equipment. The officials noted that about 400 to 500 gauging stations would have to be added in Alaska to attain the same level of gauging as in the Pacific Northwest. 

While flooding and erosion has been documented in Alaska for decades, various 

studies and reports indicate that coastal villages in Alaska are becoming more susceptible. This increasing susceptibility is due in part to rising temperatures that 

cause protective shore ice to form later in the year, leaving the villages vulnerable 

to storms. According to the Alaska Climate Research Center, mean annual temperatures have risen for the period from 1971 to 2000, although changes varied from 

one climate zone to another and were dependent on the temperature station selected. For example, Barrow experienced an average temperature increase of 4.16 

degrees Fahrenheit for the 30-year period from 1971 to 2000, while Bethel experienced an increase of 3.08 degrees Fahrenheit for the same time period. 

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES HAVE DIFFICULTY QUALIFYING FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Alaska Native villages have difficulty qualifying for assistance under the key federal flooding and erosion programs, largely because of program requirements that 

the project costs not exceed economic benefits, or because of cost-sharing requirements. For example, according to the Corps’ guidelines for evaluating water resource 
26

7The Corps’ guidelines are based on the Flood Control Act of 1936, which provides that ‘‘the 

Federal Government should improve or participate in the improvement of navigable waters or 

their tributaries . . . if the benefits... are in excess of the estimated costs.’’ 33 U.S.C. 

§ 701a. 

8The Corps has the authority to make cost-sharing adjustments based upon a community’s 

ability to pay under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended. 33 U.S.C. § 2213(m). 9 According to state of Alaska officials, historically the state has provided the nonfederal 

matching funds for most Corps of Engineers (and other federal) projects, but with the extreme 

budget deficits currently faced by the state of Alaska, matching funds have been severely limited. 10The Emergency Watershed Protection program was authorized under the Flood Control Act 

of 1950, Pub. L. No. 81–516 (1950).

projects, the Corps generally cannot undertake a project whose costs exceed its expected economic benefits as currently defined.7 With few exceptions, Alaska Native 

villages’ requests for the Corps’ assistance are denied because of the Corps’ determination that project costs outweigh the expected economic benefits. Alaska Native 

villages have difficulty meeting the cost/benefit requirement because many are not 

developed to the extent that the value of their infrastructure is high enough to 

equal the cost of a proposed erosion or flood control project. For example, the Alaska 

Native village of Kongiganak, with a population of about 360 people, experiences severe erosion from the Kongnignanohk River. However, the Corps decided not to fund 

an erosion project for this village because the cost of the project exceeded the expected benefits and because many of the structures threatened are private property, 

which are not eligible for protection under a Section 14 Emergency Streambank Protection project. Meeting the cost/benefit requirement is especially difficult for remote 

Alaska Native villages because the cost of construction is high—largely because 

labor, equipment, and materials have to be brought in from distant locations. 

Even villages that do meet the Corps’ cost/benefit criteria may still not receive assistance if they cannot provide or find sufficient funding to meet the cost-share requirements for the project. By law, the Corps generally requires local communities 

to fund between 25 and 50 percent of project planning and construction costs for 

flood prevention and erosion control projects.8 According to village leaders we spoke 

to, they may need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or more under these costshare requirements to fund their portion of a project—funding many of them do not 

have.9

NRCS has three key programs that can provide assistance to villages to protect 

against flooding and erosion. One program—the Watershed Protection and Flood 

Prevention Program—has a cost/benefit requirement similar to the Corps program 

and as a result, few projects for Alaska Native villages have been funded under this 

program. In contrast, some villages have been able to qualify for assistance from 

NRCS’s two other programs—the Emergency Watershed Protection Program and 

the Conservation Technical Assistance Program. For example, under its Emergency 

Watershed Protection Program, NRCS allows consideration of additional factors in 

the cost/benefit analysis.10 Specifically, NRCS considers social or environmental factors when calculating the potential benefits of a proposed project, and the importance of protecting the subsistence lifestyle of an Alaska Native village can be included as one of these factors. In addition, while NRCS encourages cost sharing by 

local communities, this requirement can be waived when the local community cannot afford to pay for a project under this program. Such was the case in Unalakleet, 

where the community had petitioned federal and state agencies to fund its local 

cost-share of an erosion protection project and was not successful. Eventually, NRCS 

waived the cost-share requirement for the village and covered the total cost of the 

project itself. (See fig. 4.) Another NRCS official in Alaska estimated that about 25 

villages requested assistance under this program during the last 5 years, and of 

these 25 villages, 6 received some assistance from NRCS and 19 were turned 

down—mostly because there were either no feasible solutions or because the problems they wished to address were recurring ones and therefore ineligible for the program. 
27

11The Conservation Technical Assistance Program was authorized under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, Pub. L. No. 74–46 (1935). 12The Senate report for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2003, Pub. 

L. No. 108–7 (2003), directed the Corps to study the following communities in Alaska: Bethel, 

Dillingham, Shishmaref, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Unalakleet, and Newtok. S. Rep. No. 107–220 at 

23–24 (2002). The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 further provided 

Continued

Source: NRCS.

FIGURE 4. NRCS Seawall Erosion Protection Project at Unalakleet (c. 2000) 

Unlike any of the Corps’ or NRCS’s other programs, NRCS’s Conservation Technical Assistance Program does not require any cost-benefit analysis for projects to 

qualify for assistance.11 An NRCS official in Alaska estimated that during the last 

2 years, NRCS provided assistance to about 25 villages under this program. The 

program is designed to help communities and individuals solve natural resource 

problems, improve the health of the watershed, reduce erosion, improve air and 

water quality, or maintain or improve wetlands and habitat. The technical assistance provided can range from advice or consultation to developing planning, design, 

and/or engineering documents. The program does not fund construction or implementation of projects. 

FOUR VILLAGES IN IMMINENT DANGER ARE PLANNING TO RELOCATE, AND THE

REMAINING FIVE VILLAGES ARE TAKING OTHER ACTIONS

Four of the nine villages we reviewed are in imminent danger from flooding and 

erosion and are making plans to relocate, while the remaining five are taking other 

actions. Of the four villages relocating, Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref are working with relevant federal agencies to locate suitable new sites, while Koyukuk is just 

beginning the planning process for relocation. Because of the high cost of construction in remote parts of Alaska, the cost of relocation for these villages is expected 

to be high. For example, the Corps estimates that the cost to relocate Kivalina could 

range from $100 million for design and construction of infrastructure, including a 

gravel pad, at one site and up to $400 million for just the cost of building a gravel 

pad at another site. Cost estimates for relocating the other three villages are not 

yet available. Of the five villages not currently planning to relocate, Barrow, 

Kaktovik, Point Hope, and Unalakleet each have studies underway that target specific infrastructure that is vulnerable to flooding and erosion. The fifth village, Bethel, is planning to repair and extend an existing seawall to protect the village’s dock 

from river erosion. In fiscal year 2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed the Corps to perform an analysis of costs associated with continued erosion 

of six of these nine villages, potential costs of relocating the villages, and to identify 

the expected timeline for complete failure of useable land associated with each community.12 Table 3 summarizes the status of the nine villages’ efforts to respond to 

their specific flooding and erosion problems. 
28

that the $2 million previously provided in the 2003 appropriations was ‘‘to be used to provide 

technical assistance at full Federal expense, to Alaskan communities to address the serious impacts of coastal erosion.’’ Pub. L. No. 108–137, § 112, 117 Stat. 1827, 1835–36 (2003). 

ALTERNATIVES FOR ADDRESSING BARRIERS THAT VILLAGES FACE IN OBTAINING

FEDERAL SERVICES

The unique circumstances of Alaska Native villages and their inability to qualify 

for assistance under a variety of federal flooding and erosion programs may require 

special measures to ensure that the villages receive certain needed services. Alaska 

Native villages, which are predominately remote and small, often face barriers not 

commonly found in other areas of the United States, such as harsh climate, limited 

access and infrastructure, high fuel and shipping prices, short construction seasons, 

and ice-rich permafrost soils. In addition, many of the federal programs to prevent 

and control flooding and erosion are not a good fit for the Alaska Native villages 

because of the requirement that project costs not exceed the economic benefits. Federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska Native village representatives that we 

spoke with identified several alternatives for Congress that could help mitigate the 

barriers that villages face in obtaining federal services. 

These alternatives include (1) expanding the role of the Denali Commission to include responsibilities for managing a new flooding and erosion assistance program, 

(2) directing the Corps and NRCS to include social and environmental factors in 

their cost/benefit analyses for projects requested by Alaska Native villages, and (3) 

waiving the federal cost-sharing requirement for flooding and erosion projects for 

Alaska Native villages. In addition, we identified a fourth alternative—authorizing 

the bundling of funds from various agencies to address flooding and erosion problems in these villages. Each of these alternatives has the potential to increase the 

level of federal services to Alaska Native villages and can be considered individually 

or in any combination. However, adopting some of these alternatives will require 

consideration of a number of important factors, including the potential to set a 

precedent for other communities and programs as well as resulting budgetary implications. While we did not determine the cost or the national policy implications associated with any of the alternatives, these are important considerations when determining appropriate federal action. 

In conclusion, Alaska Native villages are being increasingly affected by flooding 

and erosion problems being worsened at least to some degree by climatological 

changes. They must nonetheless find ways to respond to these problems. Many Alaska Native villages that are small, remote, and have a subsistence lifestyle, lack the 

resources to address the problems on their own. Yet villages have difficulty finding 

assistance under several federal programs, because as currently defined the economic costs of the proposed project to control flooding and erosion exceed the expected economic benefits. As a result, many private homes and other infrastructure 

continue to be threatened. Given the unique circumstances of Alaska Native villages, special measures may be required to ensure that these communities receive 

the assistance they need to respond to problems that could continue to increase. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee my have at this 

time.
29

TABLE 3.—NINE ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES’ EFFORTS TO ADDRESS FLOODING AND EROSION 

Alaska Native village Popu- lation 1 Status of efforts 

Villages planning to relocate: 

Kivalina ........................................................................ 388 Located on a barrier island that is both overcrowded and shrinking. Cost estimates to relocate range from $100 million to over $400 

million. The Corps is currently negotiating a scope of work for relocation alternatives under both the Planning Assistance to States 

Program and the Alaska Villages Erosion Technical Assistance Program. 

Shishmaref ................................................................... 594 Located on a barrier island and experiencing chronic erosion. Recently selected a relocation site. In the meantime, a Bureau of Indian Affairs funded seawall was recently completed to temporarily protect a road project and the Corps is starting a Section 14 project to extend this seawall to protect the school as well. Newtok ......................................................................... 329 Suffers chronic erosion along its riverbank. Legislation for a land exchange with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service became law in November 2003 (Pub. L. No. 108–129). Interim Conveyance No. 1876 signed in April 2004. Relocation studies are continuing under the 

Corps’ Planning Assistance to States Program and the Alaska Villages Erosion Technical Assistance Program. 

Villages taking other actions: 

Kaktovik ....................................................................... 295 Airport runway is subject to annual flooding. The Federal Aviation Administration funded a study to determine least-cost alternative, but 

consensus on a site for a new airport has not been reached. 

Point Hope ................................................................... 725 Airport runway experiences flooding and is at risk of erosion. The North Slope Borough is analyzing construction alternatives for an evacuation road. Barrow .......................................................................... 4,417 The Corps is currently conducting a 5-year feasibility study of storm damage reduction measures. The underlying authority for this study 

is the ‘‘Rivers and Harbors in Alaska’’ study resolution adopted by the House of Representatives Committee on Public Works on December 2, 1970. 

Unalakleet .................................................................... 741 Coastal and river flooding and erosion have combined to create a chronic problem at the harbor. The Corps has begun a study on improving navigational access. Bethel ........................................................................... 5,899 Spring break-up ice jams on the Kuskokwim River cause both periodic flooding and severe erosion along the riverbank. A Corps project to 

repair and extend the seawall to protect the dock and small boat harbor is stalled over land easements. 

1 Populations for the villages are based on 2003 Alaska State Demographer estimates.

Source: GAO analysis. 
30

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Pat Poe, Regional Administrator for the 

Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Region. Pat, nice to see 

you. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK N. POE, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, ALASKA REGION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. POE. Thanks for including me. It’s a privilege to be with you 

all. To those who have traveled to Alaska, let me say at the outset 

how pleased I am that you have come to see the people and the 

environment face-to-face. 

IMPORTANCE OF AVIATION IN ALASKA

If I might, I would like to do a couple moments as a scene setter. 

Here in Alaska aviation is quite different than I think you’ll find 

it anywhere else in the United States. For example, for every 58 

citizens in Alaska, 1 of them will have a pilot’s license. For every 

10 pilots, there are eight airplanes. Within the Anchorage Bowl we 

have over 4,000 airplanes domiciled right here. There are places in 

Alaska, for instance, 84 percent of all the post offices only get mail 

by airplane. And in many villages the only way the children go to 

school is by airplane, to fly to the next village that has a school. 

So aviation is essential to the economy and the lifestyle in Alaska. So if the village moves, so does aviation. There are several 

ways that can be done, and I want to outline just a couple of them 

for the committee. 

One, if the village moves within easy reach, so to speak, of the 

existing airport, the FAA is prepared through the Airport Improvement Program grant process to support the building of an access 

road to the new village location, or if that’s not possible, the same 

program is available to actually build a new airport. 

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS

The Airport Improvement Program grant is basically a partnership between the FAA and the airport sponsor. And in terms of all 

four of the airports that is the State of Alaska and the Alaska village community. The sponsor’s role is critical in this because the 

sponsor, first of all, puts up a degree of matching funds. Under the 

AIP program the funds range from 5 to 7 percent of the total has 

to be provided by the sponsor. 

For rural Alaska and for rural locations across the Nation, the 

lower number is used, so we are looking at a 5-percent match. In 

addition, the sponsor provides the priorities for the State. Where 

the State is the sponsor for the airports, they request the grants 

and we react to that. So part of the issue here will ultimately be 

the priority the State sets on this grant submission. 

And the third thing, as the airport sponsor, there’s a commitment to all of the grant assurances, which basically say for 20 

years these investments will stay as a benefit to the airport and 

the community they serve. 

BUILDING AN AIRPORT IN ALASKA

What does it take to build an airport? Typically in western Alaska we’re talking 3 to 5 years. We’re talking $15 million to $20 mil-
31

lion. That cost seems high, the timeframe long, but the reasons are 

all the challenges of building in rural Alaska. The expense of mobilizing the necessary equipment and workforce, the lack of building 

materials, and the fact that we have very short seasons in which 

to perform construction. 

The FAA and our approach to cost benefit, for just a moment, 

has very stringent cost-benefit requirements for where we place 

nav-aids and for where AIP funds can be used. 

However, acknowledging the differences in Alaska and other remote locations, those cost benefits tests have been waived for Alaska’s rural communities. 

An example of how this might come together at Koyukuk, for example, which is one of the four sites mentioned by GAO. In 2003 

an Airport Improvement Program grant was awarded for $10 million to elevate the runway above the 100-year floodplain. That 

project is underway. The village is looking at two different locations for a new village site, either one of which would continue to 

be serviced by the existing airport. The FAA, if the need arises, 

would be prepared through the AIP program to help support the 

creation of an extended access road. 

In closing, I think as far as the airport moving with the village, 

I think the keys to that success are early discussion, long lead 

times. The FAA, I think, enjoys a relationship with the State sponsors and other community sponsors for building together the aviation infrastructure in Alaska upon which both the economy and the 

lifestyles are built. 

That concludes my comments, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK N. POE

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today to share FAA concerns and issues 

regarding the erosion in Alaskan communities. 

I wish to preface my remarks by setting the scene for this august committee and 

tell you that Alaska is often called, ‘‘the flyingest state in the Union’’ because its 

residents depend to such a great extent upon air travel. For more than 200 communities there is no road access connecting them to the rest of the state. Transportation within Alaska is largely by aircraft. There are fewer than 15,000 miles of 

highway of which only 30 percent are paved in a state of 365 million acres. 

Air carriers transport the equivalent of four times the state’s population each year 

compared to 1.7 times the U.S. population carried by air commerce in the other 

states. There are 225 air carriers certified to operate in Alaska as either scheduled 

or on-demand carriers. Alaska has 387 public use airports and thousands of unofficial landing areas. 

Since 1982, the Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) has provided funding 

for 900 airport construction and improvement projects. This year alone, we anticipate distributing approximately $190 million in grants to State and local airport 

sponsors in Alaska. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Airports Division provides grants to 

improve airport infrastructure development including those threatened by flooding 

and erosion. The AIP program could potentially contribute a significant portion of 

the funding for relocation of an airport, if necessitated by community relocation. 

Once the decision is made to relocate a village, the airport sponsor shall make a 

determination as to whether the existing airport no longer meets the community’s 

needs. The sponsor may apply for an AIP grant to begin the planning process concurrently with the relocation effort. FAA Airports Division will review the application and either confirm the decision to relocate or offer to assist in funding alternative measures. It should be noted that the following criteria must be met in order 

for federal AIP funding to be programmed for airport development: 

—1. The airport is in the National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS). 

Some of the primary factors for the adoption of an Alaska airport into the 
32

NPIAS are: (i) the airport is a public-use airport available for use by all citizens 

and (ii) the airport serves an established community that receives scheduled 

U.S. mail service. 

—2. Any airport project must comply with the procedures and policies of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

—3. The proposed new airport must meet all applicable FAA airport design standards and be documented within an FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). 

—4. Any airport project must be requested and supported financially by the designated airport sponsor. The airport sponsor must have the legal authority and 

financial capability to carry out its responsibilities under the grant agreement. 

Those responsibilities include contributing a percentage of funding and operating the airport according to grant assurances. 

Alaska Villages Subject to Flooding and Erosion 

Alaska villages planning to relocate in an effort to address flooding and erosion 

include: Kivalina, Shishmaref, Newtok, and Koyukuk. Of these communities, all are 

State owned and operated airports. Alaska villages taking actions to mitigate erosion and flood damage include: Kaktovik, Point Hope, Barrow, Unalakleet, and 

Bethel. 

Concurrent with deliberations regarding community relocation, the FAA and the 

villages will consider whether the local airports also need to be relocated or whether 

the existing facilities can continue to serve the communities at the new village sites. 

At the villages of Kivalina, Shishmaref, and Newtok the Airports Division of FAA 

will support maintaining the existing infrastructure while the communities decide 

to undertake relocation. No major AIP-funded projects are currently programmed or 

anticipated in the near future for the current airports. If a village decides to relocate 

and it is determined that the airport must also be established in a new location, 

an application for an AIP grant will be entertained by the FAA. 

At the village of Koyukuk, a $10,000,000 AIP grant was issued in fiscal year 2003 

to elevate the runway out of the 100-year flood plain. This existing State-owned airport will continue to serve the existing community, and either of the two sites currently being considered as new locations for the village. FAA may assist in funding 

an access road if one is needed to connect the new community site with the airport. 

At the village of Kaktovik, the airport is subject to periodic seasonal flooding. A 

$300,000 AIP grant was issued in fiscal year 2002 for the development of a comprehensive airport master plan. The plan, due to be completed in the spring of 2005, 

will evaluate current flood and erosion protection at the existing airport and identify 

future potential airport relocation sites that would best serve the future needs of 

the village. 

At the villages of Barrow, Bethel, Point Hope and Unalakleet the State of Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities owns and operates the airports. 

The Point Hope airport experiences occasional erosion on the north end and is programmed for future AIP funding to provide erosion control measures (i.e. armored 

rock). The airport infrastructure at these villages is not subject to coastal erosion 

or flooding. 

Alaska Airport Development Data 

Typical costs to construct a new airport in western rural Alaska are approximately $15–$20 million. New construction typically takes 3–5 years to complete depending upon the site, the availability of adequate base materials, and environmental conditions. In an extreme case, where the new location is unknown and the 

environmental process will have to be conducted, the timeframe could extend to 10 

years. Many rural Alaska airports are constructed using a technique termed ‘‘silt 

push up.’’ This method of airport construction involves the placement of a silt subbase material that often takes several years to settle and drain prior to the placement and compaction of the top surface course material. 

These high costs and extended construction schedules reflect the challenges of 

building in rural Alaska with expensive mobilization costs, lack of suitable construction embankment materials, and short construction seasons. 

Capital investments undertaken by the FAA are subject to analysis and review 

requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended. This 

process includes mandatory coordination with other State, Federal, local community, 

and tribal agencies and governments prior to any work being undertaken. Because 

of these review requirements, it is highly unlikely that any FAA project would commence at a village without knowledge of an impending relocation. 

FAA Order 7031.2C, Airway Planning Standard Number One (APS–1) is a working order, which contains the policy and summarizes the criteria used in determining eligibility of terminal locations for establishment, discontinuance and im-
33

provements of specified types of air navigation facilities and air traffic control services. 

Former FAA Administrator Donald Engen wrote the Forward stating the following:

‘‘The safety and efficiency of air traffic determine requirements for air navigational facilities and air traffic control services, but these facilities and services 

should only be established at locations where the benefits of service exceed the cost 

to the government. Economic consideration of benefits and costs for both new establishments and improvements to existing facilities or service is related to air traffic 

activity levels. This order specifies minimum activity levels for terminal air navigation facilities and air traffic control services. For certain types of facilities, the order 

also establishes a requirement for additional cost benefit and other analyses prior 

to facility commissioning or decommissioning. Satisfying criteria specified herein 

does not constitute a commitment by the Federal Aviation Administration to provide, modify, or discontinue eligible facilities or services.’’

Acknowledging Alaska’s dependence upon air transportation, there are provisions 

in the Order exempting both the agency and airport sponsors in remote locations 

from the cost/benefit analyses required in other regions of the United States. 

If a determination were made requiring the relocations of runways or navigational 

aids, the instrument procedures for the airport would be developed concurrently 

with the new airport construction. The current time frame for the development of 

instrument procedures is approximately 12 to 18 months depending upon the availability of survey data, completion of environmental studies, and establishment of 

weather and communications facilities. 

In association with the creation of a new airport there will be the establishment 

of air routes and installation of navigation aids. Estimates of costs per airport range 

from $30,000 to $40,000 for two approaches. 

FAA has limited facilities at the Kivalina and Shishmaref airports, and no facilities at the other airports. There are no known FAA environmental cleanup requirements at any of the airports. Costs to remove the facilities at the two airports are 

estimated at $60,000. There are requirements in the FAA leases to restore the property upon decommissioning of facilities. The estimated costs for FAA facilities restoration are $100,000. 

In 2002, Congress funded the Rural Airport Lighting Program to improve access 

for medical and other emergencies. Lighting continues to be installed at rural airports until any relocation is completed. At three of the four locations referenced in 

the GAO report (i.e., Kivalina, Shishmaref, and Koyukuk) there are projects identified to establish airport lighting as an aid to rural access as follows: 

Establish runway end identifier lights (REIL) and precision approach path indicators (PAPI) on Runway ends 12 and 30 at Kivalina Airport (per the Rural Alaska 

Lighting Program; funded but not yet scheduled for implementation). 

Establish REIL and PAPIs on Koyukuk Airport. A portion of this work is funded 

by AIP dollars as part of the raising of the runway. This existing State-owned airport will continue to serve the existing community, and the proposed village relocation sites. 

Other projects are on schedule as part of the FAA mission to maintain navigation 

aids while airports remain in use such as: 

Replace radio control equipment for the remote communications outlet at 

Shishmaref Airport (active maintenance operations project). 

Replace obstruction lights on the nondirectional beacon tower at Shishmaref Airport (active maintenance operations project). 

In closing, the FAA has a long history of partnership with Alaska’s communities 

to develop and improve aviation infrastructure that supports the life and economy 

of this state. We continue that work as part of our mission and our stewardship of 

the state’s resources. 

Thank you for inviting me to present this testimony today and for your interest 

in this very important topic.

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO VILLAGES

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you all very much. I think what we 

probably have here is so many different villages being affected at 

the same time. We have had experience in California and down the 

east coast of separate communities being subjected to wave or 

flooding damage, but I can’t remember a situation where we faced 

almost 200 different villages threatened, and according to the re-
34

port, there’s at least nine immediately threatened that need something unique for each area. 

I do appreciate your being here, Mr. Poe, because what really 

came to our attention first was the annual flooding of some of these 

airports, which was the sole means of access for the villages. So we 

directed the GAO study, and I’m grateful for the GAO study having 

been done so thoroughly and so promptly. We do have, I think, 

some guidelines to proceed on. 

We’ve got about 40 minutes left on this first panel, so we’ll allocate time to my colleagues, who have approached this to a certain 

extent new. 

Mr. Robinson, with regard to your report, you did indicate, as 

was quoted by General Davis, that the likelihood of these entities 

being eligible for Federal assistance as you pointed out is really a 

difficult question. 

Have you come to a conclusion as to any recommendations that 

you would make to Congress with regard to changing those eligibility requirements under the circumstances that the west coast 

faces? 

Mr. ROBINSON. We have laid out options, options to consider. It’s 

hard to make recommendations—GAO likes to confine its recommendations to management issues and the like on account of efficiency. This involves sort of policy decisions that would have implications all over the State of Alaska and for everybody else. Obviously, there are very special considerations for Alaskan villages 

and their locations. But we presented our options as alternatives—

policy considerations for the Congress to consider without taking a 

firm position as to which, if any, should be adopted. Any of the four 

we laid out seems to me would change the equation for villages and 

their ability to obtain funds. 

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Murkowski and I face the problem 

almost daily of asking for an Alaska exception. I think Congress is 

getting a little worn out about that. We need to have some certainty in this area whether villages should be treated alike or 

whether there should be particular categories of exceptions that 

could be followed by the agencies involved, FEMA and the Corps, 

or whether we should go down the list and precisely lay down a 

category of assistance that would be available in each area. When 

you’re dealing with almost 200, that’s almost impossible in Federal 

law. 

Mr. ROBINSON. The Corps can also, if directed—a directed project 

by definition waives the cost-benefit requirement, and that has 

been used on a number of projects across the country. 

Chairman STEVENS. General Davis, do you think we’re at that 

point where we ought to direct you to proceed without regard to 

local contribution? 

General DAVIS. Sir, I think there are a number of alternatives 

that could be addressed policywise. One of those is for erosion 

projects, we’re not allowed to consider as an alternative a nonstructural alternative. A fancy way of saying, we can’t consider relocation even though it may be a less expensive alternative. 

We have the authorities continuing in our CAP program, continuing authorities program—gives us the ability to move very 
35

quickly, but it’s limited to a $1 million cap on the Federal share. 

So there’s a policy possibility there if we could increase that limit. 

We can consider waiving the cost sharing. All of these would be 

changes to policy that we would need your help with, but all of 

these would help us apply some of our capabilities, our programs, 

more consistently in a situation that’s very rapidly sneaking up on 

us. 

Chairman STEVENS. Is your agency prepared to make recommendations to Congress as to which option to pursue—relocation 

versus mitigation versus building of structures to prevent further 

erosion? Would you take on that task of determining on a site-specific basis what is the best recommendation or solution to follow? 

General DAVIS. Sir, I think we try to consider all those in all the 

studies that we do now. The challenge I mentioned is in some of 

our authorities, because of existing policy, we’re not allowed to consider relocation. But it would clearly show up as we did the economic analysis that that might be the most cost-effective alternative. 

The other piece that we have mentioned where we have no mechanism to address right now is costs associated with social and environmental considerations, and there’s just nothing in law right now 

that allows us to include them in our cost-benefit analysis; therefore, a lot of projects that may be on the borderline don’t have the 

benefit of that analysis to go with it. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you. 

AIRPORT RELOCATIONS

Pat, how about terms of airports, are you prepared—do you think 

it is your province to recommend to Congress which airports must 

be relocated based upon the studies these other agencies have 

made, or shall we have to face the question of having the Corps or 

another entity tell us that that is the preferred option? Can you 

make the determination? I know several were flooded 2 years in a 

row now during parts of the summer. 

Mr. POE. I think the first-tier consideration would not come from 

the FAA. I think the village community and whoever the airport 

sponsor is, whether that’s the State or the village, should have first 

say in what happens. Now, I think the FAA should and does step 

in and say that there are different mitigation solutions and we can 

speak to the degree of funding available for each. 

In some cases, rural Alaska being one, we have actually done 

armor rock and so forth to prevent further erosion. In other locations we have combined with other Federal agencies on projects 

and used the same contractor. The direct answer to your question 

is, I don’t see the FAA as being the most appropriate agency to 

step in and say where the villages should and how the airport 

should follow. 

FEMA’S PREVENTION AUTHORITY

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Pennington, I think you emphasized 

that you come in after the fact. Is there anyplace that you think 

we should change the laws so you have greater prevention authority? 
36

Mr. PENNINGTON. Good question. There are two of the areas that 

I pointed out that are actually prior to Pre-Disaster Mitigation and 

the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. The challenges that we 

run into in a lot of the Native village communities, unfortunately, 

is—Shishmaref opted into the National Flood Insurance Program. 

As I pointed out in my testimony, the NFIP is a very self-sustaining fund. So they opted in and as a result, they’ve gotten assistance, $600,000, for relocation, elevation, et cetera. 

Other Native village communities that are susceptible to much 

of the damage have not opted in and have not been very aggressive 

and, very candidly, we have been very cautious in FEMA because 

we don’t want to lead these communities into the program where 

it might not be sustainable for them economically. The government 

infrastructure may not be there to enforce building codes, and once 

that disaster hits, because they haven’t appropriately complied 

with the NFIP laws, they don’t get Federal assistance. So we’re 

very cautious how we move into those areas. 

But the pre-disaster mitigation plan, I think, is a good example 

of getting in beforehand, certainly FMA. And in FEMA’s—I’ve been 

in FEMA for 21⁄2 years as its regional Director. One of our greatest 

strengths, Senator, is coordination and collaboration. One of our 

witnesses mentioned bundling of Federal funds. I do think that 

there’s some merit to that issue. 

Where I think FEMA comes in is, it’s really leading that coordination and collaboration. We really truly are confined by the Stafford Act. It pretty much says, until that declaration comes in with 

those glaring exceptions, FEMA’s programs pretty much don’t kick 

loose. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. I’ll have other comments later. 

Senator Burns. 

Senator BURNS. Well, the discussion—thank you, Mr. Chairman—the discussion on this, and I’d like to go out there one of 

these days and just take a look at that country. I want to ask General Davis: Are these problems that we’re encountering now, is this 

a cyclical thing or is this a continuing thing as conditions along the 

coast? Is it a deteriorating thing? Is it over several years, or is it 

cyclical or is it continuing? 

General DAVIS. Sir, I’m not a scientist, but in the last couple of 

years I’ve been exposed to coastal erosion issues across the United 

States and I believe the scientists would back me up and say it’s 

a constant issue, that the whole—anybody that lives along an 

ocean or along the Great Lakes, there is kind of a constant erosion 

situation that’s going to go on and on. I think as we make decisions, we take that into consideration and offer our best advice on 

whether we armor or whether we try to relocate. 

RELOCATE A VILLAGE

Senator BURNS. We all understand the power and the unpredictability of the ocean and we also understand that even with our 

larger rivers inland, both in the 48 contiguous and here in Alaska. 

And I guess it boils down to, do you make a decision? Do we try 

to hold what we have? Or do we relocate with the prospects of it 
37

probably never getting better or some days the ocean will recede 

to reclaim those lands? 

I think in a sense the American taxpayer didn’t make the decision on where to locate a village. In the first place, what obligation 

does the American taxpayer have in order to relocate? Those are 

questions that—Congress will ask those questions just as sure as 

we’re sitting here. We know most of it—we would like to base it 

on economic reasons, but there’s also some cultural and social 

issues here where we do have an obligation, I think, to protect and 

to foster. 

So I would ask—I think those are the decisions that we will have 

to make based on the information we get from GAO and from our 

Senators that represent us up here. We will take probably their 

lead on what to do. 

Mr. Poe, with the FAA, have you already started doing some 

studies, and if relocation is necessary, do you have a pretty good 

idea what your role will be and where you can go with your facilities to land aircraft in the outer banks? 

Mr. POE. Senator Burns, yes, we have what we call airport and 

master plans, and we have funded those through the AIP program. 

Those are underway. We have looked at and in fact have taken action to relocate airports without the necessity to relocate villages. 

So we are constantly working closely with the community and with 

the State sponsors, which, by the way, all airports are not sponsored by the State of Alaska. In many cases it’s the community 

itself. 

Senator BURNS. Well, I live down in Montana, you know, and nature is a funny thing. You give unto nature what belongs to nature 

and what she gives us we have to use very wisely. Those are the 

unpredictable situations that we deal with. And understanding 

that, there’s going to be some tough decisions made by these communities and these communities are going to make those decisions. 

They can’t all be made in Washington, DC. After all, you know, 

we have to do business in 17 square miles of logic-free environment 

there. I look at it pretty much on the grounds of what is doable and 

what is not doable. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Davis, you had in your written comments and in your 

statement this morning pointed to the GAO study and title and 

noted how appropriate the title is. We have so many of our Native 

villages that are affected by flooding and erosion, but few qualify 

for Federal assistance. In response to Senator Stevens’ questions, 

we were talking about the policy and you would need assistance 

from Congress in effecting changes there. 

Can you identify for me—when we’re talking about impediments, 

qualifications for Federal assistance, which derive from statute and 

how much of it actually derives from policy? What do we need to 

look to in statute and what do we look to that’s policy driven? 

General DAVIS. I may need some help with that one. I’m not sure 

I can distinguish between statute and policy. The cost-sharing piece 

is law, so that would be statutory. Anywhere from 25 percent to 50 
38

percent, depending on where we are in there. The benefit-to-cost 

ratio of what we gain protecting versus what it costs us to do it 

is a combination of both policy and law. I probably owe you something in a follow-up, if you’d let me, to give you a little bit more 

specifics as to which are which to help you attack those. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I think that would be helpful. If we’re trying to determine how we can assist here, we need to know whether 

statutory changes need to be made versus what you can effect by 

policy. 

In your prepared testimony you made reference to the tribal 

partnership program, which authorizes the feasibility studies for 

projects that are located close to the Native villages or located in 

Indian lands in the Lower 48. I understand that this is a 50-percent cost-sharing requirement for this program. I don’t know in the 

Lower 48 the circumstances down there necessarily, but certainly 

here in Alaska most of our villages—we don’t have those resources. 

We don’t have Indian gaming here in the State, as you know. Generally, we would be unable to meet these specific cost-sharing requirements. 

And then down in the Lower 48 I would imagine you’re looking 

at tribes that, unless they have the gaming, most likely don’t have 

access to the funds to meet this requirement. So I guess my question to you is: Because of this cost-sharing requirement being set 

at this 50-percent level, are you not foreclosing the opportunity to 

really participate in the programs because of this particular statutory requirement? 

General DAVIS. I’d have to agree that that really puts the burden 

on the Alaskan tribes and Native villages because they don’t have 

the same access to funds that they have in the Lower 48. I don’t 

know where that direction came from. I’m advised again that that 

was a statutory regulation. That’s not one of the Corps’ policies, 

but that was a stipulation put on us. 

But I’d like to prove that with some background, ma’am. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Again, that would be helpful to know, if we 

wanted to look at that to make some fixes there. One more just in 

terms of this cost sharing and the impact to those that might be 

able to take advantage of these programs. 

Also, this is in your prepared comments, was reference that the 

Corps programs don’t permit your agency to fund more than x dollars per project. We know, of course, here in Alaska that our construction and transportation costs are just plain and simple higher 

than they are anywhere else in the country. Has the Corps considered—or what would your opinion be in terms of hiking these ceilings to recognize the high-cost locations like we have here in Alaska? Is that something that has been considered? 

General DAVIS. Yes, ma’am. It’s interesting how many of the 

same challenges we share. Mr. Poe was talking about the cost of 

construction for airports. We certainly have the same challenges on 

relocations or armoring the shore. For those that are not familiar 

with Alaska, my last job was in California. And to haul rock to 

some of these locations would be equivalent to quarrying on Playa 

Linda off of the coast of Los Angeles and then dragging it up to 

Seattle to put it on the shore in Seattle. 
39

One of our most valuable authorities is probably section 14, 

which gives us a very quick solution—a very quick review process, 

but it limits us to $1 million plus the cost share. An example at 

Shishmaref would be of the entire coastline that’s affected there, 

we’re able to use that authority to protect a school, but that’s like 

putting a Band-Aid on the entire coastline there, which would take 

care of the school, but the rest of the coast is at risk. 

So that’s one of the issues that I mentioned earlier where it 

would give us more capability to act and react if that limit could 

be raised beyond the current $1 million limit. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. $1 million doesn’t go very far up here. 

General DAVIS. I know it. We didn’t talk about bringing the 

equipment in, bringing the fuel in, as well as bringing the materials in. So it’s a pretty big challenge. I understand Senator Stevens is tired of going to the well to explain why things are unique 

up here, but there are some differences. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, we will just have to continue educating people. That’s why it helps to have people like Senator 

Burns and Senator Sununu here who are listening and understanding, but the challenges that we do have here are extreme in 

some instances. So I’ll look forward to kind of the breakdown, if 

you will, between the statutory versus the policies. I think that 

would be interesting to look at. 

Mr. Robinson, I appreciate the four recommendations—I don’t 

know whether you call them recommendations, but the factors that 

have to be considered that came out of the GAO report. As I looked 

at them, I guess I made the assumption that these were recommendations that should all be considered and that this is not, 

we’ll do this one at the expense of the others. 

For instance, the comment that was made both by yourself and 

General Davis about the importance of having social and environmental factors considered. I would like to think that we would be 

able to have that included, as well as a good discussion about 

waiving the Federal cost-share requirement. So I just want to make 

sure on the record that what you have proposed in this report are 

not mutually exclusive; if you accept one, then we don’t need the 

others. 

Mr. ROBINSON. They are not mutually exclusive. I mean, there 

are differences that could be adopted, but perhaps it’s a matter of 

nuance. We are relatively sensitive to making recommendations on 

policy issues. We have been counseled from a variety of forums that 

that’s not a good role for the General Accounting Office, so we tend 

to try to cast these things as options, legitimate policy options for 

the Congress to consider. If we thought they were illegitimate, we 

wouldn’t have put them on the table to begin with. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, you didn’t. Therefore, you would not 

be willing to prioritize any of these four? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Yeah, I would just mention that the one that’s 

probably most cost neutral, if you will, the bundling option, is more 

of a mechanical common sense kind of a thing. If you’ve got multiple agencies who can each bring a relatively small number of dollars to the table, and each of those would bring a different set of 

paperwork and additional requirement and additional standards to 

meet, if you could establish a mechanism to bundle all those rel-
40

atively small sources of funds together under one set of requirements, it makes a world of sense from a common-sense standpoint 

to have that kind of option available to you. That would lessen the 

cost no more than having them all available separately. 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Pennington, I have to admit a little bit 

of confusion here. The question was asked, how much can you do 

from a preventive perspective as opposed to coming in and cleaning 

up the mess afterwards. You mentioned the pre-disaster relief and 

flood mitigation, but I think what I understood from your comments is that it is not appropriate or it doesn’t make economic 

sense to certain villages to take advantage of the flood insurance? 

Help me out here. 

Mr. PENNINGTON. I actually stated it a little awkwardly. The last 

thing I would ever want to do is lead a Native village into the National Flood Insurance Program knowing that the policies are relatively expensive—they’re very expensive, and I would not want 

them to end up defaulting on those policies and then somehow be 

caught up in the bureaucratic mess that could deny them Federal 

assistance in the long haul. So we’re very cautious about going into 

those communities. 

Any day, any moment, as soon as this hearing is over, if a community wants to jump into the National Flood Insurance Program, 

we’re willing to go there. Shishmaref, like I mentioned, is in the 

program. And I think the number of policies that are actually 

issued there are very small. I think it’s anywhere from two to 

nine—I’ve got the numbers. That gives them the ability to receive 

FMA dollars. But because there’s that lack of building enforcement 

codes, et cetera, and the expense—I don’t want to see the tribes 

and the Native villagers go broke paying the policies in the process 

of trying to save the homes just so they can qualify for FMA dollars, if that makes sense. 

So we don’t have a lot of requests—we have no requests from 

them to get into the NFIP at this point. We consult with our State 

partners and those Native villagers and can certainly do that, but 

we’re just a little cautious. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So it’s fair to say that you don’t go out and 

advertise and say, come on, we’ve got a program that can assist 

you from a prevention perspective recognizing that in many of 

these villages they won’t be able to qualify in the first place because of certain code issues? 

Mr. PENNINGTON. I think the short answer is yes and no. Yes, 

it’s a widely popular, widely known, widely advertised program 

throughout our entire region. How we apply that, like you mentioned in your previous comments about Alaska’s Native villages, 

they are different. They’re out there. We just want to make sure 

that trying to apply that one the broad brush NFIP approach, that 

if we apply it in those Native villages that it’s going to work. And 

I’m not sure that it necessarily can just yet there because of the 

economic consequences to the families up front and perhaps in the 

long haul. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether any 

of the panelists know, or perhaps you do, whether there has been 
41

an effort in the past to do any kind of a coordinated authority to 

study these issues. If there hasn’t, it certainly might be appropriate 

to have an authority, an erosion control authority that would review and work with the collaboration coordination of the spectrum, 

as Mr. Pennington was talking about. That might be something 

that the committee would want to consider. 

Chairman STEVENS. I think it’s a good idea. I think we ought to 

pose that question to the agencies. That would be another panel of 

agencies, also. Seems to me if you follow through on that idea, we 

should ask Federal agencies and State agencies to come together 

in an authority and see if we could authorize that authority to have 

funding under new standards that would give the discretion to 

waive or limit the local contribution, but also would have a requirement that if it gets to be a decision to relocate, that that relocation 

would have to be approved by Congress. 

I think we could have mitigation and control authority immediately. I do not think we can get the money in a time sufficiently 

that’s large enough money-wise to move these villages if it’s going 

to cost, as anticipated, up to $100 million or more to move one village. I do think that’s a good idea if we could get together quickly. 

When we get back, we’ll request the meeting of your agencies in 

Washington and see if we can come to an agreement before we 

have the appropriations bill for water and power and see if we can’t 

put in there some basic new authorities that will give the flexibility 

that these witnesses indicate is necessary. 

We’ll follow through on that suggestion, Senator. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Sununu. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

Mr. Robinson, you mentioned bundling, the process of bundling, 

and the degree to which it might make a difference in helping villages support some of these costs. Are there any other circumstances that you’re aware of where this kind of approach or 

process has been used? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes. I think BIA is using something very comparable. I think they’re quite pleased with the flexibility and the 

common sense that that’s offering them and the ability to get something done with the minimum of administrative costs and the like. 

Senator SUNUNU. Are there statutory or legal hurdles to this 

being done? 

Mr. ROBINSON. I believe a statutory exemption would be necessary to possibly meet the need to comply with every agency’s individual set of regulations and the like in the concept of the bundling exercise, yes. 

Senator SUNUNU. In your report you talk about the cost of relocating villages, and the figures that I recall range between $100 

million and $400 million in one case. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator SUNUNU. One, that’s an enormous amount of money. 

But, two, that’s a very broad range. What are the key factors that 

create such a significant cost, and why is the uncertainty so great 

to have to provide such a range? 

Mr. ROBINSON. In the one case, which is the only case where we 

have a firm estimate, which is the Kivalina case, site A would cost 
42

roughly $100 million, maybe a little more than that, based on 

Corps analysis. Site B would cost well over $400 million. 

It’s a difference in the site and the volume of gravel that’s necessary to arrange the privilege to protect, the permafrost, to insulate the permafrost, if you will; and brings it above the flood areas. 

So it’s the volume of gravel and, as the General mentioned, the 

hauling of 8 to 10 inches of gravel hundreds of miles to cover hundreds of acres. It’s no small undertaking especially in this high-cost 

environment. 

Senator SUNUNU. General Davis, were the sites that were assessed chosen by the Army Corps, the GAO, the village? 

General DAVIS. I think it was a combination of what the locals 

were asking for and what we were advising under the best engineering practices as the most efficient sites as far as the engineering piece. The other piece in difference in cost is not fully knowing 

where were the sources of material, whether we could get something locally and bring it in at a low cost or whether it would have 

to be shipped great distances at a very exorbitant cost. 

Senator SUNUNU. Finally, your testimony mentioned a number of 

flood/erosion projects that you had undertaken successfully. 

What key factors would you identify for being the drivers behind 

the success of those projects? 

General DAVIS. I think probably one of the key factors is one 

we’re already familiar with and that is that it was before cost sharing, so we didn’t have that additional challenge of a poor community trying to find their cost share. What we found that worked, 

though, is an aggressive, astute, educated, local constituency that 

is willing to work with the State and Federal agencies, that understands the process. 

A very key factor is the congressional support that the members 

here in Alaska have given to these projects because most of them 

don’t meet the benefit-to-cost ratios and, therefore, have to be authorized, as opposed to a project that we would recommend. But it’s 

initiative and understanding the process and working through the 

process. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. I do hope that we can 

find a way to get together and deal with this. 

My last question would be: Is there any one of these villages that 

must be done this year? 

Mr. ROBINSON. There are four of them that are categorized as 

having imminent problems. The problem is, Senator, that I don’t 

think any of them are imminently preparing to move. The site selection issues—Newtok might be the farthest along because it has 

a land exchange already worked out with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Others are still considering sites. 

Koyukuk is way deep in the decision-making process. So I don’t 

think anything is imminent. All the planning and site selection 

issues still have to be completed in most of the villages. 

Chairman STEVENS. It would be my hope that next year at this 

time we could arrange a field trip and take the Members that are 

interested out to a series of sites and get an in-depth understanding of some of these problems. I look forward to talking with 

you all when we get back to Washington and this meeting we hope 
43

to have to see if we can prioritize some of these and set up a time 

to go. Maybe we’d have to go earlier in the spring to see the real 

problem. But I think a field trip up there would be helpful to us. 

The members have this map in front of us of the nine villages 

that were really highlighted by the GAO report. We’re talking 

about from Maine to Florida, the distance between some of these. 

So it’s not a locals problem in the sense of distance. It’s an enormous problem to deal with the logistics of being able to handle 

even two of these at the same time with the same agencies; Corps 

of Engineers working in Bethel and working in Barrow or Kaktovik 

at the same time. The range of distance is the coastline of the 

South 48. 

So I don’t think it’s going to be easy to marshal the forces to do 

more than one or two of these in 1 year. We have to prioritize 

where we’re going as soon as we can. 

Mr. ROBINSON. That’s a good point. I would say that that work 

is not theoretical. We visited four villages and our audit teams 

came back from visiting the sites with their eyes wide open as to 

the gravity of the issue. 

Chairman STEVENS. General Davis. 

General DAVIS. Sir, I’d like to follow up on your point of looking 

at, say, 1 year. One of my additional duties is to be a member of 

the Corps’ Coastal Engineering Research Board. This is chaired by 

our Director of Civil Works. Three division commanders sit on 

there and three outside coastal experts sit on there. We meet twice 

a year. 

We met earlier this month and discussed where our next meetings would be. They asked me to host a meeting in Hawaii. I told 

them, if you’re asking me to host a meeting, there are much more 

pressing coastal issues in Alaska, so we recommend that we hold 

one of our next two meetings in Alaska. November is probably not 

the right time. We’re looking at next May, June, bringing that 

board up here that makes recommendations to the Chief of Engineers on where to focus his research efforts in coastal engineering. 

So I think it would fit well. Perhaps we might be able to tie it 

in with a future hearing. It helps us address one of the challenges 

that we have, as Senator Burns mentioned, is we don’t know what 

we don’t know. We won’t have the same weight gauge and technical data-gathering equipment here on the Alaskan coast as we 

have along the Lower 48. So I think it’s another step going forward 

toward the long-range solution that focuses some of our capabilities 

here in the State. 

Chairman STEVENS. That’s a great suggestion. Maybe we could 

arrange the hearing in Hawaii in November and the field trip in 

the summer. 

General DAVIS. I think the rest are going to be in the District 

of Columbia unfortunately. So you’re welcome to come by and visit 

us. 

Chairman STEVENS. On the next panel will be Wayne Mundy, 

Administrator of the Alaska Office of Native American Programs, 

Public and Indian Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development; Edgar Blatchford, the Commissioner of the 

Department of Community and Economic Development; and Mr. 
44

David E. Liebersbach, Director of the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. 

It is time for our first break. 

We appreciate your attendance and ask that you keep comments 

to 8 minutes so we can keep to our schedule today. I’ll call first Mr. 

Wayne Mundy, Administrator of the Alaska Office of Native American Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Mr. Mundy. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE MUNDY, ADMINISTRATOR, ALASKA OFFICE OF 

NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING 

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. MUNDY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify on this topic, which is so vital to 

many Alaska communities. Secretary Jackson and Assistant Secretary Liu extend their support to the committee’s efforts to take 

a serious look at these issues. Since housing is a critical component 

of any community, it is important that the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, HUD, be aware of and participate in 

Alaska’s efforts to deal with erosion and flooding issues. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you, Chairman 

Stevens, Senator Murkowski and Representative Young for your 

ongoing advocacy on behalf of the housing and community development needs of American Indians and Alaska Native peoples 

throughout the Nation, and especially in Alaska. 

Flooding, and the resulting erosion problems have hurt many villages, rendering some locations permanently uninhabitable. HUD 

programs offer several options to address these problems, or, when 

necessary, move the village. These programs include the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Acts Program, NAHASDA; the Indian Community Development Block 

Grant Program, ICDBG; the Rural Housing and Economic Development Program; the State Community Development Block Grant 

Program; and the Home Investment Partnership Program. These 

sources could be used to help a community develop capacity as well 

as to study, plan and help finance community relocation. 

We also have two guaranteed loan programs that can provide additional funding sources to assist tribes in leveraging their funds 

and placing income-eligible families in their own homes. The title 

VI program allows the tribe or its tribally designated housing entity, TDHE, to leverage their NAHASDA funds and pledge future 

grants as collateral. This loan guarantee could be used to fund infrastructure construction as well as fund new home acquisition and 

construction. The Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program provides 

the tribe, their TDHE or an individual Alaska Native family with 

a Federal loan guarantee for the purpose of building or acquiring 

new housing units. At present, both loan funds are significantly 

undersubscribed. 

I am pleased to report that in Alaska, tribes, TDHEs and Alaska 

Natives are taking advantage of new opportunities to improve their 

housing conditions by using the Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program. This loan guarantee program is an important part of the administration’s efforts to increase home ownership opportunities for 

the American people, and nowhere is this more important than in 

Alaska Native villages. I’m proud to report to you that Alaska leads 
45

all area offices of Native American programs in this effort. To date, 

nearly 350 loan guarantees have been issued in Alaska. 

Chairman STEVENS. How many? 

Mr. MUNDY. Over 350, sir. 

HUD certainly appreciates the contribution of the General Accounting Office in understanding the impact on erosion and flooding. I would like to offer some thoughts based on our experience 

and involvement with Alaska Native villages. 

It is critical that the social impact be considered in the analyses 

by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, as Senator Murkowski has already pointed out. 

Alaska’s Native villages are isolated communities with unique cultures based on local subsistence practices. We believe a thorough 

evaluation of the costs and the socioeconomic issues would provide 

a fuller assessment of any proposed actions. 

Alaska Native villages are generally dependent on the State and 

Federal governments. Rarely do Alaska Native villages have a tax 

base or other funding source to meet the cost-sharing requirements 

for existing programs to address flooding and erosion. In order for 

Alaska Native villages to access these programs, it may be necessary to waive or substantially reduce the cost-sharing requirements. 

In the recent past some communities that have decided to undertake village relocation have found themselves eliminated or adversely impacted in their efforts to obtain grants that would allow 

them to maintain the investments already made at their current locations. Decisions on how long to maintain or operate the existing 

facilities, and when to stop and begin the relocation are appropriate issues for mutual agreement between the grantors and 

grantee. This would ensure appropriations are wisely spent and not 

totally lost when a move occurs. 

In HUD’s opinion, the bundling of funding sources makes very 

good sense. However, within the GAO report there was no discussion of the barriers on matching funds from different agencies with 

different restrictions on the funding. One of the most obvious barriers would be the variety of environmental assessment and review 

processes used by the probable partners. We recommend that the 

agencies get together to identify barriers in bundling their funds 

and consider whether it would be appropriate to make joint recommendations for possible legislative or regulatory or changes to 

minimize the barriers. 

Clearly, the solution to this problem is beyond the control and 

funding of any single agency. Solutions will only be reached 

through the cooperation of the tribes, the local governments, the 

State agencies, the Federal agencies and any private sector entities 

that are involved. We should be challenged not just to look at the 

historic solutions to these problems; we need to apply creative remedies and be willing to explore alternatives. 

We do not fully understand the causes of flooding and erosion, 

only that there are communities in distress, and HUD possesses 

some of the tools to help address those issues. This hearing offers 

the opportunity to explore real solutions, even if those solutions 

may be long term. With the collective wisdom and desire of all involved, we believe reasonable solutions may be found. Again, HUD 
46

stands ready to be an active and willing partner in this effort, and 

we applaud your efforts and leadership in this area. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you for saying your agency is available to work with us. That’s very good. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE MUNDY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on this topic, which is so vital to many Alaska communities. Secretary Jackson and Assistant Secretary Liu extend their support to the Committee’s efforts to 

take a serious look at these issues. Since housing is a critical component of any community, it is important that the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) be aware of and participate in Alaska’s efforts to deal with erosion and flooding. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you, Chairman Stevens, Senator Murkowski and Representative Young for your ongoing advocacy on behalf of 

the housing and community development needs of American Indians and Alaska Native peoples throughout the Nation, and especially in Alaska. 

Introduction 

Flooding, and the resulting erosion problems have hurt many villages, rendering 

some locations permanently uninhabitable. HUD programs offer several options to 

address these problems or, when necessary, move the village. These programs include the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act’s 

(NAHASDA) Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program; the Indian Community 

Development Block Grant (ICDBG) program; the Rural Housing and Economic Development (RHED) program; the State Community Development Block Grant 

(CDBG) program; and the HOME Investment Partnership Program. These sources 

could be used to help a community develop capacity as well as to study, plan and 

help finance community relocation. 

We also have two guaranteed loan programs that can provide additional funding 

sources to assist tribes in leveraging their funds and placing income-eligible families 

in their own homes. The Title VI program allows the tribe or its tribally designated 

housing entity (TDHE) to leverage their IHBG funds and pledge future grants as 

collateral. This loan guarantee could be used to fund infrastructure construction as 

well as fund new home acquisition and construction. The Section 184 Loan Guarantee program provides the tribe, their TDHE or an individual Alaska Native family 

with a Federal loan guarantee for the purpose of building or acquiring new housing 

units. At present, both loan funds are significantly undersubscribed. I encourage 

lenders, tribes and their TDHEs to take a close look at the benefits they can realize 

by using these programs to enhance housing development and the necessary community infrastructure. 

I am pleased to report that in Alaska, tribes, TDHEs and Alaska Natives are taking advantage of new opportunities to improve their housing conditions by using the 

Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program. This federally guaranteed home mortgage 

loan program is an important part of this Administration’s efforts to increase homeownership opportunities for the American people, and nowhere is this more important that in Alaska Native villages. I am proud to report to you that Alaska leads 

all Area Offices of Native American Programs in this effort. To date, nearly 350 loan 

guarantees have been issued in Alaska. 

Erosion and Flooding Issues 

HUD certainly appreciates the contribution of the General Accounting Office in 

understanding the impact of erosion and flooding. I would like to offer some 

thoughts, based on our experience and involvement with Alaska Native villages. 

It is critical that the social impact be considered in the analyses by the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Alaska 

Native villages are isolated communities with unique cultures based on local subsistence practices. We believe a thorough evaluation of the costs and the socio-economic issues would provide a fuller assessment of any proposed actions. 

Alaska Native villages are generally dependent on the state and federal governments. Rarely do Alaska Native villages have a tax base or other funding source 

to meet the cost-sharing requirements for existing programs to address flooding and 
47

erosion. In order for Alaska Native villages to access these programs, it may be necessary to waive or substantially reduce the cost-sharing requirements. 

In the recent past, some communities that have decided to undertake village relocation have found themselves eliminated or adversely impacted in their efforts to 

obtain grants that would allow them to maintain the investments already made at 

their current locations. Decisions on how long to maintain or operate the existing 

facilities, and when to stop and begin the relocation are appropriate issues for mutual agreement between the grantor and grantee. This would ensure appropriations 

are wisely spent and not totally lost when a move occurs. 

In HUD’s opinion, the bundling of funding sources makes very good sense. However, there was no discussion of the barriers on matching funding from different 

agencies with different restrictions on the funding. One of the most obvious barriers 

would be the variety of environmental assessment and review processes used by the 

probable partners. We recommend the agencies get together to identify barriers in 

bundling their funds and consider whether it would be appropriate to make joint 

recommendations for possible legislative or regulatory changes to minimize the barriers. 

Clearly, the solution to this problem is beyond the control and funding of any single agency. Solutions will only be reached through the cooperation of the tribes, the 

local governments, the state agencies, the federal agencies and any private sector 

entities that are involved. We should be challenged not just to look at the historic 

solutions to these problems; we need to apply creative remedies and be willing to 

explore alternatives. We do not fully understand the causes of flooding and erosion, 

only that there are communities in distress, and HUD possesses some of the tools 

to assist them. This hearing offers the opportunity to explore real solutions, even 

if they are long-term. With the collective wisdom and desire of all involved, we believe reasonable solutions may be found. Again, HUD stands ready to be an active 

and willing partner in this effort, and we again applaud your leadership. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions 

you may have.

Chairman STEVENS. Our next witness is Edgar Blatchford, Commissioner for the Department of Community and Economic Development and the former mayor of Seward. Good morning. 

STATEMENT OF EDGAR BLATCHFORD, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT 

OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ANCHORAGE, 

ALASKA 

Mr. BLATCHFORD. Good morning, Senator, and members of the 

committee. Thank you very much for allowing me to testify before 

you. This is a very important hearing for the people of Alaska, particularly rural Alaska in the unorganized borough. 

I am the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Community 

and Economic Development. Mr. Chairman, the Department’s 

name will be changed effective September 2 to the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. If you notice a 

change later, it’s because of the legislature and the Governor’s office changing the name of the department. 

I’m here on, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on 

behalf of the State and on behalf of the Governor and we are seeking assistance from the Federal Government and direction from the 

Senate Appropriations Committee. Erosion and flooding is endemic 

to our State with nearly all of our communities having some type 

of flooding and/or erosion impact, as I would venture may be the 

case in many of the communities in each of the other home States 

of the members of the committee. Where the problem in Alaska differs is where Native communities, primarily in what we refer to as 

the unorganized borough where there’s no regional government or 

county equivalent exists and those communities are most at risk. 

A few villages, Mr. Chairman, have no room for gradual retreat—
48

the moving back of homes and infrastructure as is occurring in numerous communities throughout our State. 

Retreat is no longer an option. For a few villages complete relocation is likely to be the only viable alternative. We cannot fund this 

daunting task on our own. 

Senator Stevens, I believe, has asked us here today to focus on 

the particular dilemma of this handful of communities that are 

named in the December 2003 General Accounting Office report titled ‘‘Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and 

Erosion, But Few Qualify For Federal Assistance.’’ If we together 

with Federal agencies lead assistance, we can forge a roadmap for 

these few. We will also be paving the way for improved planning 

and development guidelines for the many villages that are at risk, 

but have not passed into this imminent threat of loss category. 

Shishmaref, Newtok, Koyukuk, Kivalina—these villages have not 

caught up with the visions of sustainability that we push communities to strive for and support through the Denali Commission and 

our other partner agencies. 

Their needs for basic services—a sewer system, a new clinic, improved water supply—are real, but unfortunately must be put on 

hold because of the high risk in their current village location. In 

most of the risk communities structural erosion/flood control measures are not a cost-effective option, but in the case of Shishmaref 

are still being tried. I fear these costly measures will only continue 

to divert our monetary resources and energies from the primary 

need—relocation. 

Federally led village relocation planning will need to continue, 

but has not been well supported at the State level because of a lack 

of funding and staff. The State encourages the Federal lead on relocation planning efforts, but would like to see ties to the Governor’s 

Access to the Future initiative to see if relocation sites may support 

more locally sustainable economies. 

The erosion planning relocation efforts the Department has led, 

for example, Alakanuk’s Erosion and Land Use Plan, found other 

Federal resources and programs were difficult to tap to move 

threatened structures, as Federal authorities are not focused or applicable to village relocation needs. 

The Department, Division of Community Advocacy’s floodplain 

management efforts have tried to integrate sound erosion management policies with our floodplain management program, but frankly this is difficult without a Federal erosion policy or Federal guidance. For example, the current multimillion dollar, 5-year effort to 

modernize the Nation’s flood maps—for which we are very grateful 

for and encourage continued Senate Appropriations Committee 

support—we are told that FEMA flood mapping dollars cannot be 

used for delineating an erosion risk. Our department is leading this 

important flood map update effort and will try, with limited resources, to include erosion risk areas on our rural community-based 

mapping effort. Sound identification of risks is vital to avoid the 

many problems of the past, including community infrastructure in 

harm’s way. 

As the State coordinating department for floodplain management 

in Alaska, our mission is to ‘‘provide technical assistance and coordination to reduce public and private sector losses and damage 
49

from flooding and erosion, primarily to those cities and boroughs 

that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.’’ Please 

understand one person in the State is tasked with this daunting 

mission and the department has no dedicated program funds to 

mitigate the significant flood and erosion threats facing families 

and communities throughout Alaska. Nor, to the best of our knowledge, do any State of Alaska programs address erosion, unless as 

a special legislative appropriation-directed activity. 

Our Department’s flood and erosion management mission, however, is dwarfed by our larger departmental mission of promoting 

economically sustainable communities. Now is the time to see how, 

with Federal support, we can merge these two missions. 

Federal resources must be brought to focus in assisting the most 

threatened villages. We must come together in a Federal-State 

partnership to tackle a comprehensive and coordinated plan of action for the most threatened communities named in the GAO report. We do not see this as an easy add-on to the existing authority 

of the Denali Commission, as suggested in the GAO report, but 

would welcome discussion of methods to proceed with a FederalState partnership to address the problem. 

My staff will be listening closely to comments, suggestions and 

directions that may come from this important hearing, as staff is 

in the midst of preparing a Five-Year Comprehensive Floodplain 

Management Strategy for Alaska. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and for permitting me to testify. I welcome your questions and appeal for your support on behalf of our most at-risk communities. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. Glad to have your 

comments. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDGAR BLATCHFORD

Thank you, Mister Chairman and members of the Committee for traveling to 

Alaska to hold this important hearing, and for this opportunity to testify on behalf 

of the State and the Department of Community and Economic Development. 

I am testifying before you because of our department’s Alaska Constitutional mandate to assist communities. Thus I serve as spokesman for all of rural Alaska. 

Frankly Senators, you would not be here today if we did not need the help of the 

Federal Government and the direction of the Senate Appropriations Committee. 

Erosion and flooding is certainly endemic to our State, with nearly all of our communities having some type of a flooding and/or erosion impact, as I would venture 

may be the case in many of the communities in each of your home states. Where 

the problem in Alaska differs is where Native communities, primarily in what we 

refer to as the Unorganized Borough (no regional government or county-equivalent 

exists), are most at risk. A few villages have no room for gradual retreat—the moving back of homes and infrastructure as is occurring in numerous communities 

throughout our state. 

Retreat is no longer an option. For a few villages complete relocation is likely to 

be the only viable alternative. We cannot fund this daunting task on our own. 

Senator Stevens, I believe, has asked us here today to focus on the particular dilemma of this handful of communities that are named in the December 2003 General Accounting Office (GAO) report: Alaska Native Villages: Most are Affected By 

Flooding and Erosion, But Few Qualify for Federal Assistance. If together with Federal lead assistance we can forge a road-map for these few, we will also be paving 

the way for improved planning and development guidelines for the many villages 

that are at risk but have not passed into this Imminent Threat of Loss category. 

Shishmaref, Newtok, Koyukuk, Kivalina—these villages have not caught up with 

the visions of sustainability that we push communities to strive for and support 

through the Denali Commission and our other partner agencies. 
50

Their needs for basic services—a sewer system, a new clinic, improved water supply—are real but unfortunately must be on hold because of the high risk in their 

current village location. In most at risk communities, structural erosion/flood control 

measures are not a cost effective option—but in the case of Shishmaref are still 

being tried—I fear these costly measures will only continue to divert our monetary 

resources and energies from the primary need—relocation. 

Federally led village relocation planning will need to continue but has not been 

well supported at the State level because of a lack of funding and staff. The State 

encourages the federal lead on relocation planning efforts, but would like to see ties 

to the Governor’s Access to the Future initiative to see if relocation sites may support more locally sustainable economies. The erosion planning relocation efforts the 

department has led (for example, Alakanuk’s Erosion & Land Use Plan) found other 

federal resources and programs were difficult to tap to move threatened structures, 

as federal authorities are not focused or applicable to village relocation needs. 

The DCED, Division of Community Advocacy’s floodplain management efforts has 

tried to integrate sound erosion management policies with our floodplain management program, but frankly this is difficult without a federal erosion policy, or federal guidance. For example the current multi-million dollar, five-year effort to modernize the Nation’s flood maps—for which we are very grateful for and encourage, 

continued Senate Appropriations Committee support—we are told that FEMA flood 

mapping dollars cannot be used for delineating an erosion risk. Our department is 

leading this important flood map update effort and will try, with limited resources, 

to include erosion risk areas on our rural community base mapping effort. Sound 

identification of risks is vital to avoid the many problems of the past—locating community infrastructure in harm’s way. 

As the State-coordinating department for floodplain management in Alaska—our 

mission is to ‘‘provide technical assistance and coordination to reduce public and private sector losses and damage from flooding and erosion, primarily to those cities 

and borough’s that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)’’. 

Please understand one person in the State is tasked with this daunting mission and 

the Department has no dedicated program funds to mitigate the significant flood 

and erosion threats facing families and communities throughout Alaska. Nor, to the 

best of our knowledge, do any State of Alaska programs address erosion—unless as 

a special Legislative appropriation directed activity. 

Our Department’s flood and erosion management mission, however, is dwarfed by 

our larger departmental mission of promoting economically sustainable communities. Now is the time to see how, with federal support, we can merge these two 

Missions. 

Federal resources must be brought to focus in assisting the most threatened villages. We must come together in a Federal-State partnership to tackle a comprehensive and coordinated plan of action for the most threatened communities named in 

the GAO report. We do not see this as an easy add-on to the existing authority of 

the Denali Commission, as suggested in the GAO report, but would welcome discussion of methods to proceed with a Federal-State partnership to address the problem. 

My staff will be listening closely to comments, suggests and directions that may 

come from this important hearing, as staff is in the midst of preparing a Five-Year 

Comprehensive Floodplain Management Strategy for Alaska. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and for permitting me to testify. I welcome 

your questions and appeal for your support on behalf of our most at-risk communities. 

Additional Background 

The GAO Report on Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion recommended that 

the Denali Commission’s role be expanded; likewise DCED is often named as the 

possible agency to ‘‘lead’’ a State (non-disaster) erosion response effort. DCED, since 

inception, has been the Governor’s designated lead State coordinating agency for the 

National Flood Insurance Program; leads the Flood Mitigation Assistance planning 

and project development; and now is lead for Modernizing Flood Maps. Staffing is 

insufficient to meet these existing and growing demands. 

If delegated, DCED would lead coordination if adequately funded. As the Alaska 

Land Managers Cooperative Task Force subcommittee on floodplain management 

reported 25 years ago, ‘‘Substantial evidence indicates there does not now exist on 

the State level an adequate program for floodplain planning and management.’’ 

DCED or any other State agency would not be able to be an effective ‘‘lead agency’’ 

without clearly stated and adopted roles, responsibilities and functions for a comprehensive erosion area development policy requiring concurrence and coordination 

with all agencies affected by such actions. 
51

1See Section 1366(e)(5) Eligible Activities (A) of The National Flood Insurance Act of 196 as 

Amended by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. 2Managing Coastal Erosion, National Research Council (Library of Congress CC# 89–13845).

DCED encourages the Senate Appropriations Committee to consider increasing 

support for better statewide hydrologic information that would be of great use to 

many users including developers, consultants, agencies organizations and private individuals for the engineering design, planning, forecast, monitoring, and other purposes. There is strong need for a comprehensive State stream gauging system to better define flooding events—especially in rapidly developing areas such as the fast 

growing Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks North Star Borough and Matanuska-Susitna 

Boroughs. 

Our State Floodplain Management Coordinator assisted the GAO extensively in 

their study. Flooding and erosion affect a significant number of Alaskan communities. We agree with the GAO study, indicating that the villages of Kivalina, 

Koyukuk, Newtok and Shishmaref face increased danger from floods and erosion. 

Some of these communities have sought assistance with relocation, which is also a 

goal we support. 

Unless a funded, interdisciplinary, systematic approach to relocation is undertaken to assist these most threatened communities, structures will continue to be 

temporarily moved back to avoid loss, but relocation has not, and will not, occur in 

several years. Relocation has been a topic of discussion and study for Kivalina, 

Shishmaref and Newtok for at least two decades. 

DCED would like to see the federal disaster assistance programs included in the 

many assistance mechanisms that will be needed to address the relocation needs of 

these most threatened Alaska villages. In particular, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program credited by General Accounting Office as funding the move of fourteen homes in Shishmaref after the 1997 storm, is now limited by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency guidance only to ‘‘repetitive loss structures’’ as eligible rather than including ‘‘structures subject to imminent collapse or subsidence 

as a result of erosion or flooding’’ as is allowable under the Congressional authorizing language.1 This unfairly limits a viable federal funding mechanism that has 

successfully mitigated the loss of many structures in Shishmaref but currently cannot be used. 

Historically the State has provided the nonfederal matching funds for most Corps 

of Engineers (and other federal projects) faced by the State of Alaska. However, the 

matching funds have been severely limited. There is no dedicated State fund for relocation, erosion or structural flood control. A number of special legislative passthrough grants and Community Development Block Grants have been used to fund 

erosion studies and relocation planning projects but no direct general fund exists at 

the State level. 

To some extent, as many as 213 villages are ‘‘affected’’ by erosion because erosion 

is a naturally occurring process. Data collection needs some framework for quantification. Standard(s) for measurement; erosion zone guidance and federal (or state) 

standards by which to judge erosion risk are needed. The national standard for designing, development and siting for the ‘‘100-year flood’’ event exists and is quantifiable and measurable. A standard for erosion, such as a distance measurement needs 

to be established (such as the life of the structure, which itself may need to be 

standardized—50-year life for a house, etc.). Congress has provided limited authorization to implement a coastal erosion management program,2 but this has not advanced to the level of Executive Orders for guiding federal floodplain and wetlands 

management. 

Chairman STEVENS. Our next witness is Dave Liebersbach, Director of the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Thank you very much for being here. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. LIEBERSBACH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, FORT 

RICHARDSON, ALASKA 

Mr. LIEBERSBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, for the opportunity to testify in this hearing today. I appreciate the leadership this committee is providing by focusing attention on the problems of flooding and erosion that threaten Alaska’s community. 
52

As director for the State’s emergency management organization, 

there are three points I’ll make today: First, the problems of erosion and flooding are significant dangers to many Alaskan communities. Second, the solution to the problems created by flooding and 

erosion lay beyond the existing capabilities of the communities and 

the State. 

Third, failure to find a solution to the flooding and erosion problems of our communities will place many Alaskan residents at an 

increasing risk in future years. 

My agency, the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency 

Management, acting under the authority of the Governor of Alaska, 

will assist in protecting life and property when local governments 

are overwhelmed by natural disasters or acts of terrorism. Additionally, we assist the State, local governments and private institutions in planning and preparing for disasters or terrorism events. 

Our mission is defined by law in Alaska Statute, title 26, chapter 

23, which states, ‘‘The Governor is responsible for meeting the dangers presented by disasters to the State and its people.’’ Disasters 

are defined as the ‘‘occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or 

severe damage, injury, loss of life or property, or shortage of food, 

water or fuel from an incident.’’

The law limits the response by the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management to events which pose ‘‘a widespread and severe threat’’ to human life or property. One home 

being washed away by a flood is a tragedy. It is not, however, a 

State disaster because it is neither ‘‘widespread’’ nor ‘‘severe.’’

Similarly, the constantly changing courses of our rivers and eroding coastlines are causing tragedies in local communities, but not 

disasters. The village of Noatak is but one example where gradually, house by house, one-half the village has been forced to relocate as the riverbank erodes. The residents have accomplished this, 

as is proper, without any assistance from my agency. 

Since the 1977 reorganization of this agency, the division has 

been involved in over 200 disaster events of varying size, dealing 

with every type of hazard. In the last 20 years we have responded 

to 97 flooding or erosion disaster events, which account for 51 percent of our responses. We can only guess what the next 20 years 

will bring, but we can improve our situation with good mitigation 

measures. 

Elevating or relocating structures are examples of disaster mitigation. However, outside of a federally declared disaster, the State 

of Alaska has no program to fund disaster mitigation projects. For 

a federally declared disaster the State may spend up to 71⁄2 percent 

of the total disaster funding on approved mitigation projects. Currently, we are using these mitigation funds to relocate houses in 

Alakanuk and elevate houses in Red Devil and Sleetmute. Last 

year this program funding was reduced by 50 percent. 

The 2003 report by the United States General Accounting Office 

titled, ‘‘Alaska Native Villages’’ is a tremendously important study. 

Our agency assisted the GAO in this study and supports the conclusions. Flooding and erosion affect a significant number of Alaskan communities. We agree with the GAO study indicating that 

the villages of Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok and Shishmaref face increased danger from floods and erosion. Some of these communities 
53

have sought assistance with relocation, which is also a goal we support. 

The problem is most acute for some of Alaska’s smallest communities. Again, the GAO report painted an accurate portrait of these 

problems. The small populations, the limited tax bases and the undeveloped nature of local governments are manifested in the communities most at risk also being those with the fewest local resources available to cope with the problems. We also believe the 

risk of flooding and erosion in many communities appears to be increasing and we readily share the concerns expressed by residents 

of Alaska’s rural communities. 

In conclusion, our agency has vast experience in disaster response and recovery. We will be there for each and all of these communities when the next storm strikes. We will be there for all the 

storms that follow. However, our legal mandate does not give us 

the authority, or the funding, to move a community out of the path 

of a storm. 

Clearly, there needs to be legal authority and funding to relocate 

communities that are at risk for catastrophic events. I believe these 

hearings are providing a good forum to develop the answers to 

these critical issues. 

Thank you for holding the hearings and permitting me to testify. 

I welcome questions. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID E. LIEBERSBACH

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee for the opportunity 

to testify in this hearing today. I appreciate the leadership this Committee is providing by focusing attention on the problems of flooding and erosion that threaten 

Alaska’s communities. 

As the Director of the State’s emergency management organization, there are 

three points I will make today. First, the problems of erosion and flooding are significant dangers to many Alaskan communities. Second, the solution to the problems 

created by flooding and erosion lay beyond the existing capabilities of the communities and the State. Third, failure to find a solution to the flooding and erosion 

problems of our communities will place many Alaskan residents at an increasing 

risk in future years. 

My agency, the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, acting under the authority of the Governor of Alaska, will assist in protecting life and 

property when local governments are overwhelmed by natural disasters or acts of 

terrorism. Additionally we assist the State, local governments and private institutions in planning and preparing for disasters or terrorism events. 

Our mission is defined by law in Alaska Statute, Title 26, Chapter 23, which 

states ‘‘The Governor is responsible for meeting the dangers presented by disasters 

to the State and its people.’’ Disasters are defined as the ‘‘occurrence or imminent 

threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or property, or shortage 

of food, water, or fuel from an incident . . .’’

The law limits the response by the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency 

Management to events which pose ‘‘a widespread and severe threat’’ to human life 

or property. One home being washed away by a flood is a tragedy. It is not, however, a State disaster because it is neither ‘‘wide spread’’ nor ‘‘severe.’’

Similarly, the constantly changing courses of our rivers and eroding coastlines are 

causing tragedies in local communities, but not disasters. The village of Noatak is 

but one example where gradually, house by house, half the village has been forced 

to relocate as the river bank erodes. The residents have accomplished this, as is 

proper, without any assistance from my agency. 

Since the 1977 reorganization of this agency, the Division has been involved in 

over 200 disaster events of varying size, dealing with every type of hazard. In the 

last 20 years, we have responded to 97 flooding or erosion disaster events, which 

accounts for 51 percent of our responses. We can only guess what the next 20 years 

will bring, but we can improve our situation with good mitigation measures. 
54

Elevating or relocating structures are examples of disaster mitigation. However, 

outside of a federally declared disaster, the State of Alaska has no program to fund 

disaster mitigation projects. For a federally declared disaster, the State may expend 

up to 7.5 percent of the total disaster funding on approved Mitigation projects. Currently, we are using these mitigation funds to relocate houses in Alakanuk and elevate houses in Red Devil and Sleetmute. Last year, FEMA reduced this program 

funding by 50 percent. 

The 2003 report by the United States General Accounting Office titled ‘‘Alaska 

Native Villages’’ is a tremendously important study. My agency assisted the GAO 

in this study and supports the conclusions. Flooding and erosion affect a significant 

number of Alaskan communities. We agree with the GAO study, indicating that the 

villages of Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok and Shishmaref face increased danger from 

floods and erosion. Some of these communities have sought assistance with relocation, which is also a goal we support. 

The problem is most acute for some of Alaska’s smallest communities. Again, the 

GAO report painted an accurate portrait of these problems. The small populations, 

the limited tax bases and the undeveloped nature of local governments are manifested in the communities most at risk also being those with the fewest local resources available to cope with the problems. We also believe the risk of flooding and 

erosion in many communities appears to be increasing and we readily share the concerns expressed the residents of Alaska’s rural communities. 

In conclusion, my agency has vast experience in disaster response and recovery. 

We will be there for each and all of these communities when the next storm strikes. 

We will be there for all the storms that follow. Unfortunately, our legal mandate 

does not give us the authority, or the funding, to move a community out of the path 

of the storm. 

Clearly, there needs to be legal authority and funding to relocate communities 

that are at risk from catastrophic events. I believe these hearings are providing a 

good forum to develop the answers to these critical issues. 

Thank you for holding the hearings and for permitting me to testify.
55

ALASKA DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF FEDERAL & STATE DECLARED DISASTERS (MARCH 1984 TO PRESENT) 

DISASTER DSTR # Category Total Cost State/Fed On the GAO Study Total Disasters/Percentage and Cost 

Environmental and Economic Disasters

Crown Point/May 1, 1986 ................................................................................................................................................... 86–53 E–5 $712,097.00 ....................Valdez Oil Spill/March 29, 1989 ........................................................................................................................................ 89–89 E–5 $361,679.00 ....................Moose/March 28, 1990 ....................................................................................................................................................... 90–108 E–5 $196,522.00 .................... 9 Disasters Norton Sound Herring Fish/July 13, 1992 .......................................................................................................................... 93–159 E–5 $0.00 .................... 5 percent of total Kuskokwim Chum/July 19, 1993 ........................................................................................................................................ 94–163 E–5 $0.00 ....................Bristol Bay Fish/July 18, 1997 ........................................................................................................................................... 98–184 E–5 $2,007,846.00 ....................WAFD/July 30, 1998/FEDA ................................................................................................................................................... 99–189 E–5 $18,000,000.00 ....................WAFD/July 30, 1998/ELE ..................................................................................................................................................... 99–189 E–5 $6,106,751.35 ....................Operation Renew Hope/July 19, 2000 ................................................................................................................................ 1–194 E–5 $747,122.10 ....................

Total Cost .............................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... $28,132,017.45

Other Infrastructure

Thorne Bay (Bridge)/February 3, 1986 ............................................................................................................................... 86–52 E–4 $11,778.00 ....................Klehini River Bridge/November 9, 1987 ............................................................................................................................. 88–68 E–4 $92,482.00 .................... 6 Disasters Whittier/August 8, 1989 ..................................................................................................................................................... 90–98 E–4 $634,103.00 .................... 3 percent of total Broadcasting/February 22, 1990 ........................................................................................................................................ 90–106 E–4 $130,000.00 ....................Lowell Creek Tunnell/September 27, 1990 ......................................................................................................................... 91–124 E–4 $369,786.00 ....................Kotzebue Radio Tower/August 13, 2001 ............................................................................................................................ 2–197 E–4 $41,226.77 ....................

Total Cost .............................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... $1,279,375.77

Fuel Shortages

Gambell/May 17, 1985 ....................................................................................................................................................... 85–35 E–3 $33,673.00 ....................Togiak/October 1987 ........................................................................................................................................................... 88–67 E–3 $35,000.00 .................... 6 Disasters Kongiganak/March 2, 1990 ................................................................................................................................................ 90–107 E–3 $20,000.00 .................... 3 percent of total Manakotak/April 5, 1990 .................................................................................................................................................... 90–109 E–3 $15,000.00 ....................Karluk/February 22, 1991 ................................................................................................................................................... 91–129 E–3 $22,000.00 ....................Aniak Loan/August 7, 1991 ................................................................................................................................................ 92–147 E–3 $5,082.00 ....................

Total Cost .............................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... $130,755.00
56

ALASKA DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF FEDERAL & STATE DECLARED DISASTERS (MARCH 1984 TO PRESENT)—

Continued

DISASTER DSTR # Category Total Cost State/Fed On the GAO Study Total Disasters/Percentage and Cost 

Public Services

Search and Rescue/September 13, 1989 ........................................................................................................................... 90–102 E–2 $100,000.00 .................... 3 Disasters Snow and Ice Removal/1990 .............................................................................................................................................. 90–112 E–2 $2,000,000.00 .................... 2 percent of total Shaker IV/1993 ................................................................................................................................................................... 94–166 E–2 $357,778.00 ....................

Total Cost .............................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... $2,457,778.00

Utilities (Not caused by Natural Disaster Events)

Cold Bay/May 5, 1984 ........................................................................................................................................................ 84–27 E–1 $1,345.00 ....................Cold Bay/July 31, 1984 ...................................................................................................................................................... 85–30 E–1 $740,000.00 ....................Metlakatla/December 10, 1985 .......................................................................................................................................... 86–48 E–1 $90,547.00 ....................Venetie/March 3, 1986 ....................................................................................................................................................... 86–51 E–1 $54,615.00 ....................Aniak (Sewer)/October 27, 1986 ........................................................................................................................................ 87–57 E–1 $52,500.00 ....................Angoon/November 6, 1987 ................................................................................................................................................. 88–66 E–1 $29,514.00 ....................Beaver/March 8, 1988 ........................................................................................................................................................ 88–71 E–1 $22,990.00 ....................Chenega Bay/March 25, 1988 ............................................................................................................................................ 88–73 E–1 $36,423.00 ....................Eagle/July 22, 1988 ............................................................................................................................................................ 89–79 E–1 $8,242.00 ....................Marshall/February 25, 1991 ............................................................................................................................................... 91–130 E–1 $15,741.00 ....................Angoon/May 3, 1991 ........................................................................................................................................................... 91–131 E–1 $91,468.00 .................... 14 Disasters Little Diomede/July 25, 1991 .............................................................................................................................................. 92–146 E–1 $67,684.00 .................... 7 percent of total Seward Sewage/November 20, 1991 .................................................................................................................................. 92–152 E–1 $754,541.00 ....................Kake Water Incident/July 31, 2000 .................................................................................................................................... 1–195 E–1 $409,699.25 ....................

Total Cost .............................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... $2,375,309.25

Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Landslides and Avalanches

Mt. Redoubt/December 20, 1989 ....................................................................................................................................... 90–103 D $269,886.00 .................... 6 Disasters KPB Mt. Redoubt/January 11, 1990 ................................................................................................................................... 90–104 D $149,403.00 .................... 3 percent of total Earthquake Mitigation/November 7, 1991 ......................................................................................................................... 92–151 D $225,748.00 ....................Mt. Spurr/September 21, 1992 ........................................................................................................................................... 93–161 D $287,846.00 ....................Central Gulf Coast Storm/February 4, 2000 1 .................................................................................................................... 0–191 D $17,320,725.00 ....................
57

Denali Earthquake/November 6, 2002 1 ............................................................................................................................. 2–203 D $19,934,500.00 ....................

Total Cost .............................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... $234,937,361.72

Fire: Wild Land and Structural

Russian Mission/August 9, 1984 ....................................................................................................................................... 85–31 C $89,325.00 ....................Gambell/August 31, 1985 .................................................................................................................................................. 86–44 C $201,693.00 ....................Manakotak/November 22, 1985 .......................................................................................................................................... 86–46 C $69,449.00 ....................Venetie/January 9, 1987 ..................................................................................................................................................... 87–58 C $86,000.00 ....................Delta Junction/May 28, 1987 ............................................................................................................................................. 87–61 C $22,257.00 ....................Wainwright Fire/October 6, 1987 ....................................................................................................................................... 88–65 C $2,186,931.00 ....................Barrow School Fire/February 16, 1988 ............................................................................................................................... 88–69 C $2,410,159.00 ....................Chefornak/March 23, 1988 ................................................................................................................................................. 88–72 C $272,735.00 ....................Pitka’s Point/March 29, 1988 ............................................................................................................................................ 88–74 C $97,761.00 ....................Nondalton/April 5, 1988 ..................................................................................................................................................... 88–75 C $776,897.00 ....................Klawock/October 17, 1988 .................................................................................................................................................. 89–81 C $48,157.00 ....................Yukon Flats/November 10, 1988 ........................................................................................................................................ 89–82 C $84,757.00 ....................Tatitlek/January 31, 1990 ................................................................................................................................................... 90–105 C $92,242.00 ....................Stebbins/April 9, 1990 ....................................................................................................................................................... 90–110 C $1,000,000.00 ....................Fire Suppresion/May 30, 1990 ........................................................................................................................................... 90–115 C $1,000,000.00 ....................Teklanika Fire/May 31, 1990 .............................................................................................................................................. 90–116 C $1,000,000.00 ....................Statewide Fires/July 4, 1990 .............................................................................................................................................. 91–118 C $1,995,914.00 ....................Eagle/December 28, 1990 .................................................................................................................................................. 91–126 C $33,174.00 ....................DNR/July 11, 1991 .............................................................................................................................................................. 92–143 C N/A ....................Whitestone/July 25, 1991 ................................................................................................................................................... 92–145 C $168,700.00 ....................Diomede Fire/September 20, 1991 ..................................................................................................................................... 92–148 C $974,172.00 ....................DNR Fire Disaster/July 7, 1992 2 ........................................................................................................................................ 93–158 C N/A ....................Tenakee Springs Fire/July 19, 1993 ................................................................................................................................... 94–164 C $169,369.00 ....................Department of Natural Res/August 3, 1993 ...................................................................................................................... 94–165 C $1,000,000.00 ....................DNR Statewide Fire/June 22, 1995 2 .................................................................................................................................. 95–179 C N/A ....................Miller’s Reach Fire/June 2, 1996 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 96–181 C $7,540,509.00 ....................DNR Fire Suppression/July 14, 1997 2 ................................................................................................................................ 96–183 C N/A .................... 31 Disasters DNR Fire Suppression/June 5, 1998 2 ................................................................................................................................ 98–187 C N/A .................... 16 percent of total DNR Fire Suppression/May 24, 2000 2 ............................................................................................................................... 0–192 C N/A ....................DNR Fire Suppression/June 23, 2000 2 .............................................................................................................................. 0–193 C N/A ....................Sleetmute Fire/December 20, 2001 .................................................................................................................................... 2–199 C $148,646.57 ....................

Total Cost .............................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... $21,468,847.57
58

ALASKA DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF FEDERAL & STATE DECLARED DISASTERS (MARCH 1984 TO PRESENT)—

Continued

DISASTER DSTR # Category Total Cost State/Fed On the GAO Study Total Disasters/Percentage and Cost 

Extreme Freezing Temps and High Winds

Unalakleet/March 5, 1984 .................................................................................................................................................. 84–23 B $726,865.00 ....................Mountain Village/March 8, 1984 ........................................................................................................................................ 84–24 B $986,427.00 ....................Elim/March 9, 1984 ............................................................................................................................................................ 84–25 B $384,588.00 ....................Kotzebue/April 30, 1984 ..................................................................................................................................................... 84–26 B $673,101.00 ....................Savoonga/February 26, 1985 .............................................................................................................................................. 85–34 B $255,954.00 ....................Thorne Bay/December 5, 1985 ........................................................................................................................................... 86–47 B $258,512.00 ....................Pelican/March 19, 1986 ..................................................................................................................................................... 86–52 B $18,024.00 ....................Kotzebue/February 5, 1987 ................................................................................................................................................. 87–59 B $1,231,610.00 ....................Omega Block(Cold Wthr)/January 28, 1989 ....................................................................................................................... 89–83 B $1,319,656.00 ....................Northwest Arctic Borough/February 1, 1989 ...................................................................................................................... 89–84 B $4,974,908.00 ....................St. George/February 9, 1989 .............................................................................................................................................. 89–85 B $229,853.00 ....................Sand Point/February 27, 1989 ........................................................................................................................................... 89–86 B $23,062.00 ....................Ahkiok/March 2, 1989 ........................................................................................................................................................ 89–87 B $45,937.00 ....................Galena/April 20, 1989 ........................................................................................................................................................ 89–90 B $175,124.00 .................... 18 Disasters Hazard Mitigation C.W./1990 ............................................................................................................................................. 91–119 B $556,754.00 .................... 9 percent of total Togiak/February 8, 1991 ..................................................................................................................................................... 91–127 B $51,384.00 ....................Larsen Bay/February 14, 1991 ........................................................................................................................................... 91–128 B $20,000.00 ....................South-central Windstorm/March 2003 1 ............................................................................................................................. 3–204 B $5,577,248.00 ....................

Total Cost .............................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... $17,509,007.00

Flood and Erosion Type Events for the last 20 years

Southeast Alaska/November 26, 1984 ............................................................................................................................... 85–32 A/B $958,519.00 ....................Unalaska/December 13, 1985 ............................................................................................................................................ 86–49 A/B $181,937.00 ....................North Slope Borough/March 8, 1989 .................................................................................................................................. 89–88 A/B $113,364.00 ( 3 ) Alakanuk/June 13,1984 ...................................................................................................................................................... 84–28 A $277,544.00 ( 3 ) Emmonak/June 15, 1984 .................................................................................................................................................... 84–29 A $22,884.00 ( 3 ) Haines/January 25, 1985 .................................................................................................................................................... 85–33 A $1,581,506.00 ....................Buckland/May 30, 1985 ..................................................................................................................................................... 85–36 A $83,585.00 ( 3 ) Kobuk/May 30, 1985 ........................................................................................................................................................... 85–37 A $17,979.00 ( 3 ) Anvik/June 5, 1985 ............................................................................................................................................................. 85–38 A $17,878.00 ( 3 ) Emmonak/June 11, 1985 .................................................................................................................................................... 85–39 A $72,832.00 ( 3 ) 
59

Pilot Station/June 18, 1985 ................................................................................................................................................ 85–40 A $34,736.00 ( 3 ) Upper Kuskokwim River/June 18, 1985 .............................................................................................................................. 85–41 A $56,826.00 ( 3 ) Pitka’s Point/July 9, 1985 .................................................................................................................................................. 86–42 A $12,740.00 ( 3 ) Bethel/July 10, 1985 ........................................................................................................................................................... 86–43 A $475,507.00 ( 3 ) Cordova/October 31, 1985 .................................................................................................................................................. 86–45 A $16,462.00 ....................Napakiak/May 15, 1986 ..................................................................................................................................................... 86–54 A $15,000.00 ( 3 ) Artic (North Slope) Sea Storm/September 25, 1986 .......................................................................................................... 87–55 A $3,791,026.00 ( 3 ) Southcentral AK Flood/October 12, 1986 ........................................................................................................................... 87–56 A $8,642,440.00 ....................Sleetmute/Red Devil/May 28, 1987 .................................................................................................................................... 87–60 A $51,602.00 ( 3 ) Aniak/May 29, 1987 ........................................................................................................................................................... 87–62 A $993,861.00 ( 3 ) Buckland/June 16, 1987 ..................................................................................................................................................... 87–63 A $203,548.00 ( 3 ) DOT—July 24, 1987 4 ......................................................................................................................................................... 88–64 A N/A ....................Haines Flooding/February 29, 1988 ................................................................................................................................... 88–70 A $78,590.00 ....................Crooked Creek/May 12, 1988 ............................................................................................................................................. 88–76 A $133,230.00 ( 3 ) Napakiak/Napaskiak/May 24, 1988 .................................................................................................................................... 88–77 A $125,292.00 ( 3 ) Kaltag/May 26, 1988 .......................................................................................................................................................... 89–78 A $28,883.00 ( 3 ) Shishmaref/August 5, 1988 ............................................................................................................................................... 89–80 A $318,072.00 ( 3 ) Glennallen/May 6, 1989 ..................................................................................................................................................... 89–91 A $15,000.00Circle/May 6, 1989 ............................................................................................................................................................. 89–92 A $196,657.00 ( 3 ) Ft. Yukon/May 6, 1989 ....................................................................................................................................................... 89–93 A $194,812.00 ( 3 ) 89 Spring Floods/June 10, 1989 ........................................................................................................................................ 89–94 A $4,739,881.00 ( 3 ) Klawock/June 19, 1989 ....................................................................................................................................................... 90–95 A $9,927.00 ....................Fairbanks North Star Boro/August 4, 1989 ....................................................................................................................... 90–96 A $65,640.00 ....................Mat-Su Borough/August 4, 1989 ....................................................................................................................................... 90–97 A $358,772.00 ....................Municipality of Anchorage/August 30, 1989 ...................................................................................................................... 90–99 A $2,261,615.00 ....................Seward/Kenai Peninsula/August 30, 1989 ......................................................................................................................... 90–100 A $529,552.00 ....................DOT—September 13, 1989 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 90–101 A N/A ....................Hazard Mit. 89 Spring Flood/April 14, 1990 ...................................................................................................................... 90–111 A $619,828.00 ....................McGrath/May 16, 1990 ....................................................................................................................................................... 90–113 A $39,409.00 ( 3 ) Kobuk/May 17, 1990 ........................................................................................................................................................... 90–114 A $6,153.00 ( 3 ) Bethel/July 2, 1990 ............................................................................................................................................................. 90–117 A $600,176.00 ( 3 ) Lower Kuskokwim/September 4, 1990 ................................................................................................................................ 91–120 A $835,297.00 ( 3 ) Kotzebue/September 4, 1990 .............................................................................................................................................. 91–121 A $328,845.00 ( 3 ) Nome/September 10, 1990 ................................................................................................................................................. 91–122 A $105,000.00 ....................Teller/September 10, 1990 ................................................................................................................................................. 91–123 A $173,723.00 ( 3 ) Diomede/November 21, 1990 ............................................................................................................................................. 91–125 A $622,594.00 ( 3 ) Fairbanks North Star Boro/May 3–23, 1991 ...................................................................................................................... 91–132 A $1,664,378.00 ( 3 ) Aniak/May 1991 .................................................................................................................................................................. 91–133 A $550,089.00 ( 3 ) McGrath/May 1991 ............................................................................................................................................................. 91–134 A $608,391.00 ( 3 ) Red Devil/May 1991 ........................................................................................................................................................... 91–135 A $239,953.00 ( 3 ) 
60

ALASKA DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF FEDERAL & STATE DECLARED DISASTERS (MARCH 1984 TO PRESENT)—

Continued

DISASTER DSTR # Category Total Cost State/Fed On the GAO Study Total Disasters/Percentage and Cost 

Anvik/May 1991 .................................................................................................................................................................. 91–136 A $181,700.00 ( 3 ) Grayling/May 1991 .............................................................................................................................................................. 91–137 A $78,630.00 ( 3 ) Emmonak/May 1991 ........................................................................................................................................................... 91–138 A $398,246.00 ( 3 ) Holy Cross/May 1991 .......................................................................................................................................................... 91–139 A $20,265.00 ( 3 ) Alakanuk/May 1991 ............................................................................................................................................................ 91–140 A $210,506.00 ( 3 ) Shageluk/May 1991 ............................................................................................................................................................ 91–141 A $57,867.00 ( 3 ) Galena/May 1991 ................................................................................................................................................................ 92–142 A $67,061.00 ( 3 ) Mat-Su Borough/July 18, 1991 ........................................................................................................................................... 92–144 A $515,900.00 ....................New Koliganek/October 14, 1991 ....................................................................................................................................... 92–149 A $67,526.00 ( 3 ) Kodiak/November 2, 1991 .................................................................................................................................................. 92–150 A $1,564,957.00 ( 3 ) Eagle Village Flood/May 19, 1992 ..................................................................................................................................... 92–153 A $183,729.00 ( 3 ) Eagle City Flood/May 19, 1992 .......................................................................................................................................... 92–154 A $61,147.00 ( 3 ) Galena Ice Jam Flood/May 26–29, 1992 ........................................................................................................................... 92–155 A $442,615.00 ( 3 ) Flood Response/June 9, 1992 ............................................................................................................................................. 92–156 A $22,059.00 ....................Yukon River Flood/June 17, 1992 ....................................................................................................................................... 92–157 A $1,167,796.22 ( 3 ) DOT—August 14,1992 4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 93–160 A N/A ....................DOT—October 5, 1992 4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 93–162 A N/A ( 3 ) DOT—October 29, 1993 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 94–167 A N/A ....................Fort Yukon Haz Mit/1993 .................................................................................................................................................... 94–168 A $356,765.00 ....................McGrath Road Disaster/May 23, 1993 ............................................................................................................................... 94–169 A $170,999.00 ....................Galena Flood/May 10, 1994 ............................................................................................................................................... 94–170 A $614,005.00 ( 3 ) Cummins Road/July 13, 1994 ............................................................................................................................................ 95–171 A $38,810.00 ....................Mat-Su Borough Loan/July 1, 1994 .................................................................................................................................... 95–172 A $500,000.00 ....................1994 Falls Floods/August 24, 1994 ................................................................................................................................... 95–173 A $60,883,422.00 ( 3 ) 1994 Koyukuk Flood Hmit/August 24, 1994 ...................................................................................................................... 95–173 A $11,402,495.00 ( 3 ) 1994 Koyukuk Flood TH/August 24, 1994 .......................................................................................................................... 95–173 A $335,616.00 ( 3 ) Metlakatla/November 10, 1994 .......................................................................................................................................... 95–174 A $31,863.00 ( 3 ) Skagway/November 16, 1994 ............................................................................................................................................. 95–175 A $112,786.00 ....................Yukon-Delta Kuskokwim/June 5, 1995 ............................................................................................................................... 95–176 A $207,852.00 ( 3 ) Aniak/June 5, 1995 ............................................................................................................................................................. 95–177 A $210,213.95 ....................Bethel/June 5, 1995 ........................................................................................................................................................... 95–178 A $128,861.00 ( 3 ) 1995 Southcentral Flood/September 21, 1995 .................................................................................................................. 96–180 A $10,526,962.15 ....................96 Southeast Storm/September 25, 1996 .......................................................................................................................... 96–182 A $528,180.80 ....................Tanana/Copper River Flood/1997 ....................................................................................................................................... 97–185 A $946,144.32 ( 3 ) 
61

Shishmaref/October 6, 1997 .............................................................................................................................................. 98–186 A $1,462,788.11 ( 3 ) Endicott Mtn Flooding/June 18, 1998 ................................................................................................................................ 98–188 A $667,905.92 ( 3 ) Southeastern Storm/October 27, 1998 ............................................................................................................................... 99–190 A $1,119,927.94 ( 3 ) Middle Yukon flood/May 31, 2001 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1–196 A $600,000.00 ( 3 ) Shismareff Erosion/October 27, 2001 ................................................................................................................................ 2–198 A $87,858.74 ( 3 ) Interior Flood/May 30, 2002 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 2–200 A $5,809,300.00 ( 3 ) Northwest Fall Sea Storm/October 23, 2002 1 ................................................................................................................... 3–201 A $851,000.00 ( 3 ) Kenai Peninsula Flooding/November 2002 1 ...................................................................................................................... 3–202 A $19,758,068.00 .................... 97 Declared Disasters Salcha Flood/2003 1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 3–205 A $600,000.00 .................... 51 percent of total July Riverine Flood/July 2003 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 4–206 A $500,000.00 ....................2003 Fall Flood 1 ................................................................................................................................................................ 4–207 A $683,508.00 ....................Kassan Landslide/2003 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 4–208 A $524,528.00 ....................2003 Fall Sea Storm1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 4–209 A $695,000.00 ....................

Total Cost .............................................................................................................................................................. .................... .................... $158,466,399.15

Legend: A = Flood, Erosion, and Landslides caused by heavy rains. 97 Events. 51 percent. B = Extreme Freezing Cold Temps and High Winds. 18 Events. 9 percent. C = Fire: Wild Land and Structural. 31 Events. 16 percent. D = Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Landslides and Avalanches. 6 Events. 3 percent. E = Other. E–1: Utilities (Not caused by Natural Disaster Events). 14 Events. 7 percent. E–2: Public Services. 3 Events. 2 percent. E–3: Fuel Shortages. 6 Events. 3 percent. E–4: Other Infrastructure. 6 Events. 3 percent. E–5: Environmental and Economic. 9 Events. 5 percent. 20 Year Disaster Total: 190. Total Cost All Events: $466,756,850.91. 1 Disaster listed are Authorized Costs for the disaster based on Damage Estimates authorized in the Disaster Declaration, all others are actual costs. 2 DNR Fire Suppression Disasters are tracked and reported on by DNR. 3 On the GAO study. 4 DOT Federal Highway Funding Disasters are tracked and reported on by DOT. 
62

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. First, Mr. Mundy, 

you mentioned NAHASDA. What can a village use your funding for 

in connection with flooding and erosion issues? 

Mr. MUNDY. Mr. Chairman, NAHASDA provides a lot of flexibility to tribes to determine how to use their grants. Primarily, the 

grant is for housing and housing-related activities, affordable housing-related activities. Shishmaref as well as Kivalina have used 

their NAHASDA grants in the means of moving houses, I believe 

it was from the 2000 storm that came on fairly suddenly and their 

TDHE went in and moved about four houses, I believe it was, and 

prevented them from literally falling into the ocean. 

Chairman STEVENS. Do you have authority for prevention or just 

to react to disasters? 

Mr. MUNDY. Again, if the tribe incorporates that into their housing plan. It’s how you write things into your housing plan, which 

is an annual requirement under NAHASDA. You can, and in 

Kivalina’s case, they annually put into their plan a portion of their 

monies being spent, actively being spent on planning for their 

move, their relocation. The tribe, if they adequately put verbiage 

in it, they can just about do anything, Senator. There does not need 

to be a declaration. They could react relatively fast. Again, the constraint becomes the plan. They’ve got that plan and they can 

amend that plan and have amended the plan in some cases to take 

action. 

I believe the Shishmaref plan was amended to allow an activity; 

the tribe submitted their amendment to HUD by fax. I returned 

that very quickly and it was an approved activity for which funding 

could flow on. So, again, it is very flexible, sir. 

Chairman STEVENS. You say that you have programs that can leverage village funds? What do you mean by that? 

Mr. MUNDY. Under the title VI program, sir, Congress approved 

a guaranteed program that allows a tribe to come in and take a 

portion or all of their grant funds and seek a loan from a commercial lender and then use those funds to do whatever activity they’re 

trying to do, be it build infrastructure or whatever. What they’re 

doing, they’re pledging the repayment of that loan with their future 

grant funds. 

Chairman STEVENS. Does each tribe in Alaska have funds allocated under NAHASDA? 

Mr. MUNDY. Yes, sir. Each tribe has an amount of funds that is 

allocated under a formula. Now, some of those tribes may determine if they want to go under an umbrella organization such as the 

regional housing authorities. They assign those funds to the regional housing authorities. Then the regional housing authorities 

in concert with that tribe make the decisions on how to expend 

funding. 

Chairman STEVENS. How much funding is available for that in 

Alaska? 

Mr. MUNDY. Approximately $100 million for all of the villages. 

Chairman STEVENS. That’s annually? 

Mr. MUNDY. Annually, sir. 

Chairman STEVENS. And your agency is prepared to make money 

available on the basis of leveraging—borrowing the funds for the 

future? 
63

Mr. MUNDY. That’s the way that Congress has structured it, sir. 

Chairman STEVENS. Yes, but how far in the future? 

Mr. MUNDY. Again, they’re allowed to leverage 5 years of funding. So if the tribe gets their allocation of $100,000, they can leverage that to $500,000. As long as they can demonstrate how that 

can be repaid to the lender, the lender is willing to deal with them. 

We have done several title VI’s within Alaska. 

Chairman STEVENS. Can they use that money for the local share 

of the Corps of Engineers’ project? 

Mr. MUNDY. That’s a good question, sir. I will have to look into 

that. 

Chairman STEVENS. Okay. What other sources of HUD funding 

are available besides that village entitlement? 

Mr. MUNDY. There’s—probably one of the more active programs 

that has historically been used in emergencies, flooding and erosion 

emergencies, has been the Indian Community Housing Development Block Grant Program. Shishmaref took advantage of that in 

their 1997 event and were awarded what was known as an imminent threat. Under the IHBG a portion of the overall grant is set 

aside for eminent threat nationally. Then as threats come up, those 

are then funded out of this set-aside, if you will, from the congressional appropriation. 

Chairman STEVENS. Those are for individual houses? 

Mr. MUNDY. Typically in—well, in Alakanuk and in Alatna, 

Alakanuk moved eight houses with ICDBG funds and Alatna 

moved two houses with ICDBG funds. The problem with that, the 

eminent threat portion—again, it’s a historic program. It’s been 

done for probably the past 20 years. As recently as about 11⁄2

weeks ago, the department was prepared to set aside those funds 

again and within our budgeting process we submitted our department’s operating plan for 2004 to the House Appropriations folks 

for their concurrence. And, unfortunately, that set-aside of approximately $4 million was not approved. So in 2004 we have no setaside. 

Chairman STEVENS. That was a national figure of $4 million? 

Mr. MUNDY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman STEVENS. All right. Are you working now with any of 

these nine communities in terms of their planning process? 

Mr. MUNDY. Sir, we’ve been involved with Kivalina, and generally we don’t jump in; we wait to be asked. The community really 

has to be willing to take the lead in this. We’re not the leaders. 

We’re just one of many partners in this co-effort. We’ve had active 

roles in Shishmaref, Kivalina, Newtok, with staff participating on 

relocation committees in each of the villages. 

Chairman STEVENS. Edgar, is your agency the lead agency or is 

Mr. Mundy’s the lead agency? 

Mr. BLATCHFORD. Senator and Mr. Chairman, members of the 

committee, the department is the lead State agency in dealing with 

erosion and flood control. We have the Division of Community Advocacy within the department. It’s the coordinating office for the 

national insurance program. The constitution in the State of Alaska mandates that there shall be a State agency that advises and 

assists communities in the unorganized borough. 
64

So with that responsibility upon the department, we work closely 

with the local municipalities, like Shishmaref and Kivalina. In 

Shishmaref’s case what they have done, Mr. Chairman, is that they 

have—in their flood and erosion ordinance they have set management standards and they require such things as a foundation system that allows for the relocation of structures and that the site 

be certified by a professional engineer to be safe from erosion for 

the useful life of the structure or 15 years. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the Department 

is also contracting out for relocation maps for Newtok and 

Shishmaref. 

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Burns. 

Senator BURNS. I think Mr. Mundy answered most of my questions as far as the money is concerned and how he operates. It just 

sounds like that one figure of $4 million nationwide is a pretty low 

figure. That can be used up awfully fast. 

Mr. MUNDY. Yes, sir, it could. 

Senator BURNS. How about—are we hearing from anybody at 

SBA, Mr. Chairman, in this thing? Are they involved in these hearings? 

Chairman STEVENS. They’re not involved in these hearings, no. 

Senator BURNS. Okay. I think he answered most of my questions. 

As far as funding is concerned, we may be a little bit low in some 

areas. But he answered most of my questions. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. In the village area the small businesses 

have a limited role, but we will deal with them in Washington to 

the extent we have to after this hearing. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, this could probably be addressed by either you, Mr. Mundy, or Commissioner Blatchford. 

The 184 other communities out there that experience some level of 

flooding or erosion that have been identified in this GAO report—

we have been kind of focused on the nine communities—but in the 

programs that you have available through HUD, when a community is asking for assistance or wants to locate some homes and 

they are in these villages that are not necessarily under eminent 

threat, but we know we have erosion difficulties, we know we have 

flooding problems, what guidance, if any, is given within these 

communities? 

Commissioner Blatchford, you mentioned, and I think your point 

is right on, that we need to identify the risks in the areas to avoid 

problems of the past. In other words, we don’t want to be—we don’t 

want to be putting ourselves in the way of problems in the future. 

So what role, if any, do you have as you provide for these programs 

to make sure that we are locating in an area that’s going to be relatively safe? 

Mr. BLATCHFORD. Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski, the department’s role is that of a community advocate. We don’t go into 

a community unless we have been invited into the community. We 

work as closely as we can with the local community through our 

regional offices. We look to the future, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Murkowski, and we ask this question constantly: Are these communities going to be able to sustain the kind of growth that we see 

coming down the road, that the Alaska Native communities are 
65

growing, the Alaska Native population is growing. So we look for 

economically viable activities. 

We recognize that subsistence is an economic activity, in our definition, and the need to preserve the economics or the subsistence 

lifestyle and the culture that goes with subsistence activities. But 

we always look to the future, what these communities will look like 

in 10 to 15 years, and that is our primary goal. 

So through our regional offices we work closely with the communities when we are invited in. We do some research for them. We 

write ordinances or assist in writing ordinances. We work with the 

Federal Government—in various agencies of the Federal Government and in almost all cases we work with the other departments 

in the State government. 

Just to summarize, Senator Murkowski, there is a subcabinet 

group within the cabinet of the Governor and its responsibility—

one of its responsibilities is to develop economic opportunity and 

policies for rural Alaska, a rural strategy. I hope I’ve answered 

your question. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, you kind of addressed the big picture. 

I guess I’m wondering whether there is presented within these respective villages a map, as best we can identify. We don’t know 

which way the river is going to go. We don’t know the level of wave 

activity. There is so much we just simply cannot anticipate with 

Mother Nature. But I guess I would want some kind of assurance 

that we are aware that we’re dealing with Mother Nature at her 

best or her worse and are building in areas that are going to be 

less efforts than others. I don’t know whether there’s a process that 

is out there either through your department or whether it’s something that the agencies actually take a look at. 

Mr. MUNDY. If I might, Senator Murkowski and Mr. Chair. 

HUD—when tribes build new houses, they must conform to our environmental review process. And within that we consider erosion, 

we consider floodplain, we consider those natural elements. And I 

believe that there is some level of assurance there that keeps us 

out of, if you will, harm’s way for new construction. For the existing properties it becomes a little bit more difficult to the extent 

that they’re there and we have to deal with them as it happens. 

I’m in a unique position because for 5 years before I came to 

work with HUD, I ran the Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority out in Unalaska, and Shishmaref was one of the villages that 

we moved houses in. I’m pleased to report that while I was there 

that HUD was very willing to work with the housing authority and 

the tribe to make sure that concerns were met and issues were 

dealt with and that we clearly could act in a very timely way to 

move houses out of harm’s way and deal with some of the bureaucracy at a later date. 

So I think that for a large degree for NAHASDA funds there’s 

a definite level of flexibility. When you get into some of the other 

HUD funds, it gets a little bit more rigid. There’s more regulations 

in place, and they are competitive grants except for the imminent 

threat grant. So, as an agency, we fall back on the environmental 

heavily. I think that would offer some assurance to Congress that 

it’s being addressed. 
66

Senator MURKOWSKI. One more question, and this follows on 

your comments, Dave, about the responses over the past 20 years, 

that your division has dealt with 97 flooding or erosion disaster 

events, which accounts for 51 percent of the responses. And recognizing that that’s what we deal with, we know that this occupies 

a great deal of the time, energy and resources within the division, 

within the department, and yet we have no dedicated funds—excuse me—no dedicated program within the State of Alaska to deal 

with flood or erosion issues. 

And, Commissioner, you mentioned this in your testimony as 

well. We know that this is an endemic issue to the State. It’s something that we have been dealing with in my time in the legislature. 

I see Representative Joule in the audience here. Every year that 

I was there the issue of Shishmaref was brought up and he was 

insistent we must do what we can to help. That was one village at 

that specific time. 

But it just seems to me that we’ve got a situation that continues 

year after year, and if it’s not Shishmaref, it’s Newtok or Kivalina 

or we can go down the list. I guess the question would be to you, 

Commissioner: Why have we not had a more specific focus at the 

State level on this issue of erosion to our coastal communities and 

to our river communities? Is it simply an issue of funding or does 

it go beyond that? 

Mr. BLATCHFORD. Mr. Chairman, to Senator Murkowski, I think 

it’s an issue of our ability to focus. I have a particular fondness for 

Shishmaref since my grandmother was from the Shishmaref area. 

Under another administration, under Governor Hickle, I visited 

Shishmaref and we looked at that problem back in the early 1990s. 

The impetus right now, the focus should be on avoiding the problems so that if—I was going to say if I come back under another 

administration, but I don’t see that happening—that we won’t have 

this problem again. 

We work closely with the communities and we take the lead from 

the people in the community, and we ask for their thoughts and 

their suggestions and at times, Senator Murkowski, the local leadership has a better understanding of the elements of nature than 

we do. And so we’re careful that we listen to their advice and incorporate their advice as we develop policy. 

I think that as we go in, too, Senator and members of the committee, we also look at the sustainability to the community, whether there would be other economic activities in the surrounding area 

if we were to, say, relocate or encourage the relocation of that village. Can we have a self-sustaining economy or more private sector 

jobs that would be further away? We look at mining activities, we 

look at natural resource development, and see how that complements and works with the subsistence economic base of the community. 

So, in essence, Senator Murkowski, what we do is avoid the problem, or try to avoid the problem so that we don’t see this happening again. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Just very briefly, then. In your opinion 

what can the State do within the department structure to provide 

more focus to this issue that we know we will continue to deal 

with? 
67

Mr. BLATCHFORD. Senator Stevens, Senator Murkowski and 

members of the committee, what we can do is work closely or closer 

with the Denali Commission and the other Federal agencies and 

fully recognize that the department is the lead agency. 

There’s only one department in the State government that has 

that constitutional responsibility to deal with the unorganized borough, to be their advocate, so we take that responsibility very seriously. We would urge the Federal Government to also recognize the 

unique responsibility of the department to the unorganized borough. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Blatchford. 

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Sununu. 

Senator SUNUNU. Mr. Blatchford, in your last series of responses 

you talked about the desirability of strengthening local economies 

and enabling them to have more sustainable industry and activity, 

and in your written testimony you also mentioned the Governor’s 

access to the future initiative and that you would like to see 

stronger ties with that initiative in order to help develop and identify those sustainable economies. 

Could you talk a little bit more about that initiative and also 

how those efforts would be integrated with Federal programs? 

Mr. BLATCHFORD. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, to the Senator, access to the future is the Governor’s recognition that the best locally 

driven economy is one based on self-determination and locally driven activities. We look at the private sector as complementing traditional activities, traditional economic activities such as subsistence, 

fishing, gathering, hunting. And some private sector opportunities 

are there. 

We locate an area and if the community or group of communities 

wishes to be involved in the State planning effort, we work closely. 

For example, out in southwest Alaska three communities have 

asked for our assistance in recognizing the opportunity that comes 

with the Bering Sea Fishery. We look at working closely with the 

Denali Commission and the Federal agencies. The Denali Commission has done a wonderful job in creation of some of these opportunities. 

In the Nightmute area you have a subregional airport and then 

you have a subregional health clinic. I believe the clinic has been 

completed. But also we look at the Federal Government’s activities, 

tie it with the traditional activities, and tie it with the private sector activities that might be developed, like I just said, like in the 

Bering Sea. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Murkowski had to leave to escort 

the Secretary of Transportation to another meeting. So she will be 

with us tomorrow morning. 

I would like to go back to you, Mr. Liebersbach. How do you relate to Edgar Blatchford’s commission? If you handle disasters and 

he handles planning; sounds like he’s handling some planning for 

disasters. How do you coordinate? 

Mr. LIEBERSBACH. Mr. Chairman, we work with the Department 

of Community and Economic Development in identifying mitigation 

measures, particularly when it relates to floodplains, but also in 

other areas where these communities can be affected in things that 
68

we recommend to the communities and to the department, Mr. 

Blatchford’s department, on types of things to be considered when 

they’re looking at community development of any kind or relocations, and it’s not always limited just to flooding. 

We have issues obviously in Alaska with wildfire, which right at 

this very moment as we sit here, we have a rural community that’s 

imminently threatened by a wildfire and people are being evacuated from it. We have avalanches. We work with them in that. But 

the actual work to move a community, if you will, or determine 

where a community ought to move to falls within the purview of 

the Department of Community and Economic Development and our 

input provides where to avoid risks, if you will, if they’re moving 

into new areas. 

Beyond that, of course, we work directly with them when a disaster is imminent and/or occurring because they are going to be 

there involved with us in the recovery from that disaster as we try 

to put back in place health and safety and rebuilding the community, if necessary, in an economic sustainable fashion. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, the report we have indicates that your 

agency was not involved in the Noatak planning and relocation. 

Why was that? 

Mr. LIEBERSBACH. Noatak continues to relocate. It is not relocated at this time. But the Noatak relocation, again, as I said, has 

never been declared, if you will, a disaster. It’s a house-by-house 

relocation of it. In that situation all we would be involved with in 

terms of engaging in it would be to identify the areas they should 

move back to, not necessarily from a funding standpoint, as our 

funding is related to a declared disaster event. 

Now, the one time we did engage there did not include the moving of houses, but it was in the 1994 fall floods that occurred 

throughout northern Alaska, including Noatak, and there was some 

involvement in moving part of the graveyard that we were engaged 

in. It had to be done under an emergency declaration scenario. 

The moving of the houses in Noatak have been through a multiple of funding sources of agencies that work in the Alaska villages; the Electrical Cooperative, the Corps of Engineers, Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service and several others, including the Alaska Department of Transportation and public facilities have been involved 

in the gradual movement of that community and structures in that 

community, but it’s been on a, once again, one-by-one, if you will, 

basis. It’s not been a widespread declared disaster in Noatak as 

they move. 

We have other communities similar to that where this has gone 

on. Galena is an example where they have had multiple floodings 

and they have gradually moved to a new site. We have Koyukuk, 

which is getting flooded and is being looked at for a possible relocating. Kobuk, a similar type of thing where they have to move 

back from the river, partly due to disaster response, but as they get 

later erosion going on on the Kobuk River, they’re having to move 

back from that. They’re doing it through the use of HUD monies 

and these other agencies, the Corps of Engineers help, possibly 

Alaska DOT, where it may impact roads and/or airports. 
69

Senator BURNS. Is that an ongoing situation; in other words, do 

they do that as necessary, a case-by-case basis? 

Mr. LIEBERSBACH. Senator Burns, through the Chair, yes, that’s 

correct. They don’t have an event that’s occurring. It’s just erosion 

constantly going on and they’re having to move back and it is a 

continuing situation for them. 

Even Shishmaref is continuing. Although they have some significant storm events that may periodically ratchet that community up 

to a disaster level where we have to go in and quickly move some 

houses, but the erosion is constantly out there and is not eventdriven; it’s just ongoing. Eventually, we believe, although I’m not 

a scientific expert, but we feel it’s going away. 

Chairman STEVENS. In reviewing past relocation efforts I went 

back through some history. I don’t want to mention the village 

where it occurred. But there was one village that refused to move 

in the past to the desired location because the relocation plan did 

not cover moving the cemetery. Who was involved in that in terms 

of cemetery relocation? Mr. Mundy, would your relocation plan include cemeteries as well as houses? 

Mr. MUNDY. That’s a good question. My gut feeling is probably 

no. 

Chairman STEVENS. How about you, Edgar? 

Mr. BLATCHFORD. Senator Stevens and members of the committee, I think it would include moving cemeteries. I think if we 

move an entire community, since the Department’s role is that of 

community advocate, it would take in everything that the community is about. 

Chairman STEVENS. General, I see you’re still here. Do your 

plans include moving cemeteries? 

General DAVIS. It would just be public facilities. 

Chairman STEVENS. Because of that, I did talk to a person involved in handling that move in question, and he told me it became 

quite a considerable impediment to move at all. As you reviewed 

these—where’s my friend from GAO? Are you still here? I don’t 

think they’re here. We’ll have to ask them that question. I don’t 

really remember a discussion of the cemeteries per se in these reports and the current controversy over these coastal villages. Have 

any of you dealt with that question yet? 

Mr. LIEBERSBACH. Senator Stevens, we deal with that question 

during an event-driven situation. We’ve had to not necessarily relocate, but reinter and be involved in the reinterment of caskets, remains, if you will, where because of the way these cemeteries are 

along the river areas and when we get a flood, they will actually 

literally be floated up out of the ground and they have to be reinterred. 

This happened in Alaktak during the 1994 floods. In Noatak actually it was washing away, caskets were sticking out of the 

ground and they were removed. Here recently due to fall storms 

over in—and I don’t recall the name—within the last year we were 

involved with a multi-agency involving several Federal agencies 

where a mass grave site from the early 20th century epidemics 

that occurred out there, mass graves and people were being washed 

out of those. We were involved in getting medical examiners out 

there to be sure there was no continued threat from the epidemic 
70

a century later here and then worked at getting those folks—the 

ones that were recovered—reinterred. But the actual relocation 

pre-disaster, if you will, has not been anything that we have been 

involved in addressing. 

Chairman STEVENS. I think that’s one of the issues we better address and make sure we cover it. Because if we start helping locate 

new sites, my information is that, as I said, that was a stumbling 

block when the plan did not include moving the cemetery. The village people are very much connected to their past, and I think we 

better be sure that the plans include moving all of the coastal aspects of the village. I hope everyone puts their mind on that. I don’t 

know whether we’ll have to mention it specifically in Federal legislation or not. But I think, Edgar, you better look into that for us. 

Mr. BLATCHFORD. We will, Senator. 

Chairman STEVENS. Any other questions of this panel? 

We’re going to take another 10-minute break. We’ll come back to 

the third panel. 

We have our third panel. Dr. Tom Karl, Director of the National 

Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the Director of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Gentlemen, we’re pleased to have you here. We will turn to Dr. 

Karl first and wind up with you, Dr. Akasofu. Good morning, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS R. KARL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Dr. KARL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members 

of the committee. I’m pleased to have this opportunity to testify before you today because NOAA has a variety of climate observing 

systems, data, and computer models to help us understand climate 

variability and change as it relates to coastal erosion and flooding 

in Alaska. Also, because it’s great to be back in Anchorage where 

I first learned just how difficult it can be to predict weather as a 

weather forecaster in the National Weather Service. 

Mr. Chairman, the climate in Alaska is indeed warming. The 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that most of 

the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been 

due to the increases in greenhouse gases, and this was generally 

agreed to by the National Research Council Report in its report to 

President Bush in 2001. However, as also pointed out by the NRC 

and the IPCC, the science of climate change does have a degree of 

uncertainty that will make predictions subject to many revisions in 

the future. 

Alaska’s Arctic is recognized as the area of the world where 

changes to the climate are likely to be the largest, and is also an 

area where natural variability has always been large. But there are 

a variety of climate variables that can directly affect coastal erosion 

and flooding. 

Generally, sea ice is important because it thwarts ocean wave energy. Wave energy is dependent on distance traveled by the wind 

over open water. Less extensive sea ice exposes the coastline to 

more frequent and potentially higher ocean waves and swells. Temperature drives the extent of sea ice, but changes in atmospheric 
71

and ocean circulation also play an important role in understanding 

multi-year variations of sea ice extent. Changes in precipitation 

type, amount and intensity as well as snow cover and ice cover extent can also contribute to coastal erosion from stream flow and 

overland runoff to the sea. Loss of permafrost along the coasts can 

lead to subsidence of the land that occurs when ice beneath the sea 

and along the shoreline melts. 

Alaska has considerable permafrost along its northern and western coasts. The height of the sea level to the land is the ultimate 

long-term driver for coastal erosion, but Alaskan sea level rise is 

complicated by both climatic factors and geologic forces. 

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to show some of these changes 

and some of these variables in a viewgraph presentation, if I can 

get the projector here. 

Chairman STEVENS. That’s fine. 

Dr. KARL. I’ll speak to that mike over there. 

As I pointed out, the warming in Alaska is among the largest in 

the world, and this diagram shows the mean winter temperature 

changes from 1965 through 2004. 

Let’s see if we can get our technician here. 

As I was saying, this diagram shows the temperature changes 

across the globe over the last 40 years. You can see the dark areas, 

Alaska and some of the other Arctic areas in central Asia, have had 

the largest warming over these past 40 years, more than four degrees Celsius. So clearly the Alaska region is one of the areas——

Chairman STEVENS. Four degrees from where to where? 

Dr. KARL. From the period 1965 to 2004, so over the last 40 

years we have warmed over four degrees Celsius in the Alaska region. The only other parts of the world that have warmed as much 

have been central Asia. This kind of change or the warming this 

brings in the higher latitudes is what most of the climate models 

have in mind with increasing greenhouse gases. 

Chairman STEVENS. Have there been changes in the Earth concomitant with that where the temperatures were lower in this period? 

Dr. KARL. During this period, you will see some there are some 

areas in green and blue where temperatures have actually decreased. So if you look at the Northeast part of North America, 

there’s some slight cooling, but the level of cooling is significantly 

smaller than the rate of temperature increase. 

Chairman STEVENS. How many degrees cooler? 

Dr. KARL. It’s about one-half a degree to sometimes three-quarters of a degree at the largest. Most of the world has been warming, the largest is in the higher latitudes, especially in Alaska. 

Chairman STEVENS. Are there any areas that have cooled to the 

extent that this area has warmed? 

Dr. KARL. No. This diagram shows the statewide temperatures 

for Alaska for the four seasons; winter, spring, summer, autumn. 

As you can see, the time series go back to about 1920. The temperatures for two 5-year periods in the wintertime in the 1930s and 

in the 1940s were almost as warm as what we’ve seen today, that 

is you can see by the red bars we sustained a warming in the last 

several decades for a much longer period, a number of record warm 

temperatures that occurred in the wintertime, but more significant 
72

from the standpoint of consistent change are the changes occurring 

in spring and summer. 

Although the overall temperature increases are only two to three 

degrees C, we can see them more consistent as temperatures have 

a more gradual rise; the same thing in the summertime, temperatures about one to two degrees C warmer over the last couple decades compared to earlier in the century. Often in autumn there is 

very low evidence for temperature change. Although I said earlier 

most of the models predict higher warming in the latitude, the seasonal character of the way these changes occur are entirely consistent with what some of our models suggest. 

The next slide shows how these temperature changes stack up in 

the four seasons around the world. Red dots represent the warming, the blue, cooling; the size of the dots are proportional to the 

rate of warming. These are in terms of degrees C per decade. As 

you can see, Alaska is consistent with much of the rest of the high 

latitudes and, again, you’ll only notice blue dots here in the fall 

over parts of Europe and parts of Asia and you’ll see a few blue 

dots in the wintertime. Most of the other seasons you’ll see mostly 

red indicating warm. 

Chairman STEVENS. How much of that is related to or consistent 

with fallout here in Alaska as compared to the rest of the world? 

Dr. KARL. In terms of aerosols in the air? 

Chairman STEVENS. Persistent organic pollutants. 

Dr. KARL. Soot? Yeah. 

Chairman STEVENS. Charts that show us persistent organic pollutants fall in Alaska to a greater extent than anywhere else in the 

world. 

Dr. KARL. That’s a very good question. To be honest with you—

I’ll try to be as honest as I possibly can. The amount of contribution due to soot is known to be significant, but it’s very difficult to 

put an exact quantifier on that. Dr. Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences has suggested it may contribute as much 

as 10, 20 percent, a significant part of the overall warming. However, this has not yet been confirmed by the broader scientific community. It’s an area of ongoing research. 

The next slide. The next slide is a very important aspect in understanding coastal erosion and flooding has to do with sea level 

changes. These are sea level changes measured from satellites that 

have been flown on a joint mission by Alaska and our French partners. The interesting thing about this diagram is you see the gradual rise in sea level represents a doubling of the rise in the rate 

of sea level compared to the earlier part of the century. 

These measurements are only 10 years long, but if we compare 

it to our longer sea level rise, there is some suggestion that the sea 

level rise is actually accelerating. During the 20th century, our best 

estimates from the time tables is that sea level rose between onetenth to two-tenths of a meter. These data would suggest that sea 

level, if it would continue at this rate, would be rising at two- to 

three-tenths of a meter. The protections for the 20th century level, 

our models suggest that the rate of sea level rising in this century 

will be one-tenth of a meter to nine-tenths of a meter. 

Chairman STEVENS. By what time? 
73

Dr. KARL. By the end of the century. Between one-tenth and 

nine-tenths of a meter by the end of this century. 

At the present rate of sea level rise, two- to three-tenths of a 

meter; this is significantly less than the high end as predicted by 

the models. But there is a considerable amount of uncertainty because we don’t quite know what will happen to the Greenland Ice 

Sheet, whether the increase of margin will accumulate more snow 

up there or whether the increased margin will melt more snow and 

the accumulation of snow won’t be able to compensate. 

So the bottom line here is sea level is indeed rising, and there’s 

some potential it may actually be accelerating from the last decade. 

The next diagram shows what’s happening to sea ice extent. It’s 

very important because as we mentioned, sea ice extent is a good 

buffer for the wave energy. But sea ice is melting, and in fact if 

you take a look at the rate of sea ice melt in spring, the red line, 

we’ve lost more sea ice since 1950 than equivalent to the size of 

the State of Alaska. 

At the rate of sea ice melt, by the first part of the next century 

we will not have summer sea ice in the Arctic. There are a number 

of models that have been run to try to look at what would be projected in terms of sea ice melt rate. There’s a suggestion in one of 

the most extreme models that sea ice could entirely melt from the 

Arctic in the first half of this century. Most other models suggest 

that there would still be sea ice into the beginning of the 22nd century. 

Chairman STEVENS. What about the Antarctic? When we were 

down there, I was told that the ice in the Antarctic is increasing. 

Dr. KARL. Because it’s so much colder in the Antarctic, even 

though the temperature is warm, the accumulated precip actually 

increases. So it’s quite conceivable that ice and snow in the Antarctic could actually increase as opposed to decreasing. Here in the 

Arctic we don’t have extreme temperatures like the central parts 

of the Antarctic. 

The next slide here is an important aspect of the ability of 

storms to generate waves. As the sea ice melts, the number of intense winter cyclones, or intense cyclones any time of year is important because they’re responsible for high seas. The best data 

that we have suggests that the number of intense winter cyclones 

is in fact increasing. 

This diagram shows the number that you would expect in any 

square mile across the North Pacific. You can see that the trend 

is increasing. We’re not 100 percent sure that this data is as robust 

as we see it because we know we are better able to measure the 

storms over the last 20 years because of satellites, and we try to 

account for that in these time series, but we’re not sure we have 

been able to eliminate all of that potential bias. 

Most models suggest that there may be more intense cyclones as 

global temperatures increase, but, again, that’s not a real clear indication because of some key factors. One factor would suggest that 

the temperature would raise between the poles, so cyclones should 

decrease as well. Another factor on higher levels of the atmosphere 

suggests it will go the other way. So the jury is still out on the effect of understanding this, but the data on this suggests we are 

seeing more intense cyclones. 
74

The next slide shows a reduction in snow cover extent. I won’t 

spend much time here. But less snow cover extent exposes the land 

to precipitation. 

The next diagram shows—I’ll skip this in the interest of time. 

The next shows how precipitation has changed. It’s very difficult to 

measure precipitation in Alaska because the density of stations up 

here is much less than it is, for example, in the Lower 48. Our best 

estimates suggest that precipitation increases 10 to 12 percent 

mainly in the summer and wintertime. Interestingly enough, what 

we’re finding is that most of the increase where we have more stations south of 62 degrees north, that increases the coming of heavier precipitation events. Of course that’s more conducive to erosion 

and potential flooding. The next diagram shows——

Chairman STEVENS. Pardon me. How extensive is your coverage 

of the coastline? 

Dr. KARL. The coastline is probably—I say probably because I 

haven’t done an analysis—but off the top of my head I would suspect that the coastline is probably better monitored in the interior, 

but still considerably undermonitored compared to the Lower 48, 

for example. Another issue in trying to understand the precipitation is trying to adjust for the biases of wind-driven snow. It’s quite 

a challenge to try and make sure we are actually measuring precipitation as opposed to snow that’s falling in the gauge. This will 

give you an idea of the size of the corrections we have to apply to 

some of the data. This is for Fairbanks. The black line is true; the 

red line has been adjusted for biases. 

The next diagram shows some of the stations that were installed 

in Alaska. This is in Fairbanks, Alaska. You can see the elevated 

fence around the precipitation gauge trying to eliminate windblown snow into the gauge. 

The next diagram presents a bit of the challenge that we have. 

This is a station we put up in Barrow, and you can see polar bears 

decided to do some modifications, as you see the way these shields 

are bent, the polar bear decided it looked kind of interesting. 

Again, these are some of the challenges, and I think one of our 

key contributions in future years will be to increase the density of 

stations and observing sites across the State. 

If I could just conclude. Changes in the Alaska climate are 

among the largest in the world. They have likely played an important role in determining the extent of coastal erosion and flooding 

in Alaska and are likely to continue to do so in the future. Accelerated coastal erosion and flooding in Alaska cannot be ruled out. 

We at NOAA have got numerous climate monitoring, data management and analyses, and climate modeling activities that should 

help us understand, adapt and mitigate the impact of climate variability and change on the State of Alaska. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to contribute to this 

important hearing. I look forward to answering any questions you 

might have. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much, Dr. Karl. 

[The statement follows:]
75

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS R. KARL

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: As Director of the National Climatic Data Center, which is part of NOAA’s Satellite and Information Services, and 

Program Manager for NOAA’s Climate Observations and Analysis Program, I am 

pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today. NOAA has a variety of 

climate observing systems, data, and computer models to help us understand climate variability and change as it relates to coastal erosion and flooding in Alaska. 

Climate Change in the Arctic 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that most of the 

observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increases 

in greenhouse gases, and this was generally agreed to by the National Research 

Council (NRC) in its report to President Bush in 2001. However, as also pointed out 

by the NRC and the IPCC the science of climate change does have a degree of uncertainty that will make predictions subject to many revisions in the future. 

The Arctic is recognized as the area of the world where changes to the climate 

are likely to be the largest, and is also an area where natural variability has always 

been large. Current climate models predict a greater warming for the Arctic than 

for the rest of the globe. The amount of warming would lead to significant impacts. 

The projections of future changes however, are complicated by possible interactions 

involving stratospheric ozone, human-induced atmospheric aerosols, and changes in 

other parts of the Arctic system. For this reason, current estimates of future 

changes to the Arctic vary significantly among climate models. The model results 

disagree as to both the magnitude of changes and the regional aspects of these 

changes. We also know that the Arctic undergoes considerable natural climate variation on decadal and longer time scales and this must be considered in addition to 

any anthropogenic change. 

As an outgrowth of discussions among NOAA, the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee, and the National Science Foundation in fiscal 

year 2000, it was agreed that the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) could 

be the site for the Secretariat of a new international activity, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). As an activity of the Arctic Council, the ACIA is nearing 

completion. Scientists from all eight Arctic countries have contributed to its completion. NOAA is the minor co-sponsor of the ACIA, while the National Science Foundation is providing the major support to the ACIA through the IARC. The Secretariat for the ACIA is located at the University of Alaska and is headed by Dr. Gunter Weller, who is also Director of NOAA’s Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research. 

The ACIA will result in improved knowledge regarding past climate variability 

and change over the entire Arctic, projections of Arctic climate variability in the future, and an evaluation of the impacts of climate variability and change on the biological environment, human uses of the environment, and social structures. The Arctic Council will use this knowledge to prepare a policy report discussing actions that 

governments should consider in response to anticipated changes in Arctic climate. 

More information on ACIA can be found on its website at http://www.acia.uaf.edu. 

Climate Considerations Related to Coastal Erosion and Flooding in Alaska 

There are a variety of climate variables that can directly affect coastal erosion. 

Our degree of uncertainty regarding how these variables are changing and could 

change over the course of the 21st Century is not uniform from variable to variable. 

For climate monitoring, this uncertainty arises from the length of the data record, 

its spatial and temporal resolution, as well as the capability of instruments used 

to measure climate-related change. Many of our long-term climate model projections 

are also subject to considerable uncertainty. Climate variables of particular interest 

related to coastal erosion and flooding include: (1) sea ice, snow cover, and permafrost extent all directly driven by temperature change and to some extent by atmospheric and oceanic circulation; (2) storminess as related to wave height and storm 

surges; (3) precipitation and related snow and ice cover; and (4) sea level as related 

to land ice, ocean temperature, and movement of the land relative to the ocean 

owing to geologic features and glacial rebound of the land as land ice melts. 

Generally, sea ice extent is important because it thwarts ocean wave energy. 

Wave energy is dependent on distance traveled by the wind over open water. Less 

extensive sea ice exposes the coastline to more frequent and potentially higher ocean 

waves and swells. Temperature drives the extent of sea ice, but changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation also play an important role in understanding multiyear variations of sea ice extent. Changes in precipitation type, amount and intensity as well as snow and ice cover extent, can also contribute to coastal erosion from 

stream flow and overland runoff to the sea. Loss of permafrost along coasts can lead 

to subsidence of the land that occurs when ice beneath the sea and along the shore-
76

line melts. Alaska has considerable permafrost along its northern and western 

coasts. The height of the sea relative to the land is the ultimate long-term driver 

for coastal erosion, but Alaskan sea level rise is complicated by both climatic factors 

and geologic forces affecting local and regional changes in the height of the land relative to the ocean. 

Atmospheric Temperature 

Temperatures in Alaska have increased. Observed data indicate that Alaskan 

spring and summer surface temperatures have increased by about 2 to 3 degrees 

Celsius (about 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) in the last few decades. However, there 

are no discernible trends of temperature during autumn, and changes in winter 

temperature are more complex. There were two five-year periods in the first half 

of the 20th Century when temperatures were nearly as warm as today, but during 

recent decades record-breaking high temperatures have become more common. 

Although the number of reporting stations in Alaska is quite low relative to our 

station network in mid-latitudes, the data uncertainties are not large enough to 

overwhelm the increases observed. Additionally, NOAA has now established two Climate Reference Stations to help discern any acceleration or deceleration of current 

temperature trends. 

Most climate model projections for temperature change during the 21st Century 

suggest that Alaska, and the Arctic as a whole, will warm at least twice as much 

as the rest of the world. The warming is expected to be largest during the cold half 

of the year. The observed lack of warming during the autumn and the relatively 

large increases during other times of the year is not entirely consistent with model 

projections. They do not depict this asymmetry. This suggests we require more observations, and better and higher resolution models. 

As temperatures increase and more sea ice is melted, a natural climate feedback 

occurs, due to the less reflective character of the ocean formerly covered by sea ice. 

These feedbacks can lead to an accelerated warming and additional sea ice melting. 

For example, the average of the five models used in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment project substantial reductions in summertime sea ice around the entire 

Arctic Basin, with one model projecting an ice-free Arctic in the summer by the middle of this century. On average, the climate models project an acceleration of sea 

ice retreat, with periods of extensive melting spreading progressively further into 

spring and fall. 

Sea Ice Extent 

Large portions of Arctic sea ice form during the cold seasons and melt during the 

warm seasons. Considerable sea ice persists through the melt-season, but due to 

ocean circulation and the resultant movement, multi-year sea ice makes up only a 

fraction of the total ice extent. Our records indicate that the formation of new sea 

ice each year cannot keep up with the rate of melting. This melting is consistent 

with observed surface warming. Arctic sea ice has been steadily decreasing since the 

1950s, measured largely from continuous coverage provided by NOAA polar orbiting 

satellites beginning in the 1970s. Prior to that time, assessment of Arctic sea ice 

extent during the first half of the 20th Century was limited to reports from land 

stations and ocean surface observations. We have less confidence in the data from 

the first part of the Century, but independent anecdotal evidence, such as interviews with native peoples of Alaska, also suggests substantially greater sea ice extent during this time. NOAA is working to increase our sea ice monitoring capability 

through ice-tethered buoys to determine sea ice thickness and other key aspects of 

sea ice. 

It is important to understand the trends of coastal sea ice extent since sea ice extent is an important determinant of wave energy affecting coastlines. As the storms 

which create wave energy also have a strong component of seasonality, it is important to know how sea ice is changing by season. In the Pacific, major extra-tropical 

storms occur most frequently during autumn through spring. Since the 1950s, sea 

ice extent during winter and autumn has decreased from 15 to 14 and 12 to 11 million square kilometers, respectively. Since the 1950s, decreases in spring and summer are substantially greater, down from an average of 15 to 12 and 11 to 8 million 

square miles, respectively. This is equivalent to more than 10 percent of the North 

American land mass and is a larger area than the State of Alaska. At the present 

rate of decrease, the Arctic would be ice-free in summer during the first half of the 

22nd Century. All climate models project this trend to continue regardless of the 

emission scenario used and the sensitivity of the model. 

Storms 

The climatology of Pacific Ocean storms favors the development of the strongest 

storms (extra-tropical cyclones) from autumn to spring. Although there are remain-
77

ing uncertainties in the quality of data, analyses of Pacific Ocean extra-tropical cyclones over the past 50 years indicate little change in the total number, but a significant increase in the number of intense cyclones (storms with low central pressure and resultant high winds and waves). The increase in extra-tropical storms is 

punctuated with considerable year-to-year variability. The extent to which the increase in intense cyclones is related to global warming remains uncertain, although 

there is some evidence to suggest as the world warms the intensity of cyclones could 

increase. But because there are competing factors that act to cancel each other, the 

case for an increase in cyclone intensity is yet to be settled. Similarly, our ability 

to remove biases in the data also remains uncertain owing to more plentiful data 

on storm intensity in recent decades. 

Regardless of whether intense cyclones are increasing in number or whether they 

will increase in the future, the greater expanse of open water with less extensive 

sea ice means that ocean waves with resultant coastal erosion can occur more frequently and with greater impact. 

Precipitation and Snow Cover Extent 

One of the most difficult quantities to measure across the State of Alaska is precipitation. This is due to the variable nature of precipitation in general, the relatively low number of observing stations across the State, and the difficulty of providing high-quality data in the harsh Arctic environment. Over time, we anticipate 

that NOAA’s Climate Reference Network and the modernization of NOAA’s Cooperative Observing Network could help to alleviate this problem. 

Based on existing records, however, there is evidence to indicate that during the 

past 40 years as temperatures have warmed, more precipitation is now falling in 

liquid form (rain) as opposed to solid form (snow, ice). The quantity of precipitation 

has also increased during the 20th Century, with much of that occurring during the 

recent period of warming over the past 40 years. The increase is estimated to be 

between 10 to 20 percent with most of the increase occurring during the summer 

and winter as opposed to the transition seasons. Owing to greater overall precipitation in the summer, the percent increase in summer equates to a greater quantity 

of precipitation compared to winter. 

The large uncertainty in the estimated precipitation trends is, in large part, attributed to the low density of observing stations, but also stems from the difficulty 

of measuring wind-blown solid precipitation. Analyses of changes in heavy precipitation events have been conducted for areas south of 62 degrees north latitude, and 

they show that the frequency of heavy precipitation events has substantially (30 to 

40 percent) increased during the past several decades. Additionally, a disproportionate amount of the precipitation increase is attributed to the heaviest precipitation events. 

Climate models project that precipitation will increase by a greater proportion in 

the high latitudes compared to the rest of the world. This is consistent from model 

to model, as is the fact that this increase is expected to be disproportionately large 

in the heavier precipitation events. Both can lead to increased erosion. 

NOAA’s polar-orbiting environmental satellite data and surface-based observations have also observed major changes in snow cover extent. North American snow 

cover extent has decreased by about 1 million square kilometers and this trend is 

expected to continue or accelerate. Surface observers also report a one to two week 

reduction in the number of days with snow on the ground across the State. In addition, in the Arctic, the lake and river ice season is now estimated to be 12 days less 

compared to the 19th Century. 

The increase in total precipitation and liquid precipitation, especially when falling 

on less extensive snow cover, can affect soil erosion. However, the complicated effects of changes in precipitation type and intensity, earlier break-up of winter ice, 

and less extensive snow cover have not been well evaluated with respect to potential 

impacts on coastal erosion and flooding. It will be necessary to know which factor 

dominates in order to understand whether coastal erosion and flooding will be enhanced or ameliorated due to changes in precipitation and snow cover extent. 

Permafrost 

The thawing of the permafrost, especially along the northern coasts, is expected 

to continue. Long-term measurements of temperatures within the permafrost are 

rare, but it is clear that as the air and ocean temperatures have warmed permafrost 

is also melting. As permafrost melts along the coastlines the effect on coastal erosion can be compounded by sea ice retreat. The thaw causes the land to subside 

along the shore exposing more land to the action of the waves. 
78

Sea Level 

As ocean temperatures warm and glacial ice melts, global average sea level is increasing. Sea level rise during the 20th Century is estimated to be between 0.1 and 

0.2 meters. To put this in context, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) estimates that during the last 6,000 years, global average sea level variations on time-scales of a few hundred years and longer are likely to have been less 

than 0.3 to 0.5 meters. The IPCC also notes that no significant acceleration in the 

rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. 

Under a scenario of climate warming, climate models project changes in sea level 

by the end of the 21st Century of between 0.1 to 0.9 meters. This large range is 

related to uncertainties regarding increasing snowfall in Greenland and Antarctica 

as the climate warms (warm air can hold more water vapor leading to heavier snowfall when temperatures are below freezing) versus the rate of melting due to warming. Generally, increases in sea level are projected by climate models to be higher 

in high latitudes. Such a general increase in sea level would expose more land to 

coastal erosion through wave energy and storm surges. 

However, it is important to recognize that there are many local and regional variations of sea level rise and such variations are no exception in Alaska. Complications arise due to geologic forces, the rebound of the land as glaciers melt and, in 

some areas, local engineering projects. For some areas in Alaska, sea level is actually falling due to natural geologic and glacial rebound effects, (e.g., parts of Southeast Alaska), but this is generally not the case in much of Alaska. The global rise 

in sea level is due to both melting of land ice and the thermal expansion of ocean 

water. There are other factors that also play a role in sea level such as the amount 

of water held back by human-made land reservoirs, leading to sea level falls, but 

this effect does not dominate. 

NOAA maintains a global network of tide gauges that have provided the only data 

to calculate global sea-level rise prior to the satellite era. High quality tide-gauges 

are a high priority within NOAA to ensure adequate reference points to gauge sea 

level changes. NASA, in cooperation with our French partners, has been flying a 

satellite altimeter as part of their Topex/Poseidon and JASON missions. These missions provide high precision global sea level data when calibrated with NOAA and 

other country tide-gauges. Recent analyses of these data suggest that global sea 

level may have accelerated its increase during the 1990s by a factor of two or more 

compared to increases. Additional data will be required to confirm such a trend, and 

points to the importance of continuing satellite altimetry missions and maintenance 

and expansion of global tide gauges. 

Conclusion 

Changes in Alaskan climate are among the largest in the world. They have likely 

played an important role in determining the extent of coastal erosion and flooding 

in Alaska and are likely to continue to do so in the future. Accelerated coastal erosion and flooding in Alaska cannot be ruled out. 

NOAA has numerous climate monitoring, data management and analyses, and climate modeling activities that should help us understand, adapt and mitigate the 

impact of climate variability and change on the State of Alaska. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for allowing me to contribute to this important hearing. 

I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

Chairman STEVENS. Your turn, Dr. Akasofu. 

STATEMENT OF DR. SYUN-ICHI AKASOFU, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL 

ARCTIC RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, FAIRBANKS 

Dr. AKASOFU. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you for providing me an opportunity to testify at this important hearing today. 

I’d like to address the cause and effect of climate change on the 

coasts and coastal communities of Alaska. 

First of all, it’s important to recognize that prominent climate 

change has been in progress in the Arctic during the last several 

decades. During the past few decades, the area of the Arctic Ocean 

sea ice has shrunk approximately 5 to 10 percent, but at an accelerating rate, and its thickness is decreasing. 
79

Mr. Chairman, I would like for you to see viewgraphs. Is it okay 

if I stand here? 

Chairman STEVENS. Yes, sir, go ahead. 

Dr. AKASOFU. This shows the changes of sea ice in the Arctic 

Ocean from 1979 to 2003. So you can see quite a bit of shrinkage. 

Chairman STEVENS. What time of year is that, Doctor? 

Dr. AKASOFU. Since 1979 and then we are comparing 1979 and 

2003. 

Chairman STEVENS. Spring, summer, fall? What is it? 

Dr. AKASOFU. The summer, and 1979 the first time that satellite 

data became available, so those are satellite data. 

The Arctic is quite unique in that, as the previous speaker mentioned, climate change is prominent in comparison to the rest of 

the Earth. It is generally believed that various ice forms in the Arctic cause positive feedback in enhancing climate change. 

Many of these climate change phenomena in the Arctic could be 

interpreted as a result of ‘‘warming,’’ the warming in quotations. 

Scientists have been seriously debating whether or not the cause 

of the ‘‘warming’’ is natural or manmade. Here, ‘‘manmade’’ means 

the greenhouse effect. It’s fair to say, both. Then the question is, 

how much each is contributing. I do not think that any decent scientist can claim explicitly how much the greenhouse effect is contributing to the present Arctic ‘‘warming’’ trend. 

So I’d like to show you an example. It’s a bit difficult to see. The 

shrinking of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean appears to be related to 

inflow of warm North Atlantic waters into the Arctic Ocean. You 

can see the red one, the green one, Alaska near the top. The red 

one is the warm Atlantic water coming into the Arctic Ocean. 

The strength of the inflow varies as a part of what we call the 

North Atlantic oscillation, which is a natural phenomenon; it has 

multi-decadal periods and has been intense during the last several 

decades, so that it is not really accurate to claim that the present 

shrinking of sea ice is all manmade. Many scientists find ‘‘warming’’ trends, but cannot refer to their causes explicitly, and the 

press takes excerpts from these to claim that all warming is manmade. 

The scientific consensus is that large natural variations are superimposed on any trend caused by greenhouse effects, as the previous speaker also emphasized. But what’s important here is that 

aside from the debates on the cause of the ‘‘warming,’’ is that climate change is in progress and Alaskans have to face this trend 

seriously. Since the subject of coastal erosion is not my specialty, 

I consulted with several of my colleagues including Dr. Orson 

Smith, School of Engineering, UAA, Dr. John Walsh, International 

Arctic Research Center, and Dr. Glenn Juday, UAF. As far as 

coastal erosion is concerned, they are of the opinion that sea level 

rise caused by global warming is expected to be about 16 inches, 

40 centimeters, in the next 100 years. With the present rate it is 

not the most serious threat in the near future. 

The most important threat comes from the expected retreat of 

sea ice in this region. In fact, this almost looks like the new movie, 

‘‘The Day After Tomorrow.’’ So what’s happening is that because 

the sea ice is retreating, the gap between the coastline and the sea 

ice, that is the place that intense cyclones tend to form. In fact, 
80

during the last 6 or 7 years or so, of seven damaging coastal flood 

events, five were born in the Arctic Ocean. 

This was a study by the National Weather Service in Fairbanks. 

And so this is the type of cyclone. In fact, this caused very severe 

damage in Barrow and I’m sure in other places. 

This diagram shows that looking at the entire Arctic region, the 

number of extreme events causing coastline erosion have been increasing from about the 1960s. The only problem we have now is 

that we have not finished looking at the data earlier. So how this 

trend is a new trend or was there any earlier event similar to that, 

we are not investigating. So at least I can say that at this point 

there are some newspaper articles to say in some of the villages 

this is due to global warming. This is very hard to prove. 

Definitely the coastline is changing, but we are not sure—that’s 

hard to prove that this is due to a greenhouse effect. I had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Kenneth Toovak, Sr. in Barrow. He was 

trying to explain that at the present time the—this is from Barrow 

to Point Barrow Road—and this is what’s happening now, that the 

waves are crossing. And at the present time lots of water is going 

on to make this the barrier, but he thinks that it’s not really working. Waves are still crossing. He is of the opinion that the sloughs 

are a way of building the bank much better. So that’s what he told 

me. 

I would like to conclude my testimony. 

Chairman STEVENS. Doctor, to what extent will this be—it’s on 

the west coast as well as the Arctic coast? 

Dr. AKASOFU. I’m sorry, I don’t have data on this, but definitely 

my understanding is that coastline erosion in Alaska is very serious. But I cannot compare Alaskan erosion and the west coast’s 

erosion in general. 

Chairman STEVENS. I mean the west coast of Alaska. 

Dr. AKASOFU. At the present time this is what we call extreme 

event, very intense cyclones tend to form Northwest of Alaska in 

the open sea area and then start to move to the Southeast direction. So hitting the Barrow area and also the northern part of the 

Bering Sea because of the straight coastline. So I think they are 

about the same. The cyclones tend to form in the open sea because 

the sea is open now and then move toward Barrow. That is a general trend the National Weather Service people told me. 

Chairman STEVENS. And the thinning of the sea ice means that 

the shoreline is more affected by the wave action coming in? 

Dr. AKASOFU. The sea ice tends to protect the coastline from the 

big waves, but now if this warming trend or shrinkage of the Arctic 

Ocean sea ice continues, the coastline, the protection by the sea ice 

is lost. Also the open sea tends to encourage the formation of intense cyclones. Is this a new trend or what? At the International 

Arctic Research Center we’re trying to find out. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. SYUN-ICHI AKASOFU

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing today. 

Today, I would like to address the cause and effect of climate change on the coasts 

and coastal communities of Alaska. 
81

First of all, it is important to recognize that prominent climate change has been 

in progress in the Arctic during the last several decades. During the past few decades, the area of the Arctic Ocean sea ice has shrunk approximately 5–10 percent, 

but at an accelerating rate, and its thickness is decreasing (from about 4m to 3m). 

Many Alaskan glaciers are receding; the Columbia Glacier is receding at a speed 

of more than 10m per year. Permafrost temperature in Alaska is changing. Air temperature records show an increase of 1 °C (∼2 °F) per decade in Siberia, Alaska, and 

Canada; the global average increase is about 0.6 °C (∼1.2 °F) per century. 

The Arctic is quite unique in that climate change is prominent in comparison to 

the rest of the earth. It is generally believed that various ice forms in the Arctic 

cause positive feed-back in enhancing climate change. 

Many of these climate change phenomena in the Arctic could be interpreted as 

results of warming. Scientists have been seriously debating whether or not the 

cause of the warming is natural or man-made? Here, man-made means the greenhouse effect. It is fair to say, both. Then, the question is how much each is contributing? I do not think that any decent scientist can claim explicitly how much the 

greenhouse effect is contributing to the present arctic warming trend. 

I would like to summarize several important findings of the arctic research community. 

The shrinking sea ice in the Arctic Ocean appears to be related to inflow of warm 

North Atlantic waters into the Arctic Ocean. The strength of the inflow varies as 

a part of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which is a natural phenomenon; it 

has multi-decadal periods and has been intense during the last several decades, so 

that it is not accurate to claim that the present shrinking of sea ice is all man-made. 

It is not certain if NAO is enhanced by the greenhouse effect. 

Some of the past records on glaciers indicate that glaciers in Alaska and Greenland began receding as early as 1900 or earlier (e.g. the Portage Glacier), well before 

the CO2 increase became serious. Furthermore, the collapse of the Columbia Glacier 

is partly due to mechanical causes. In Norway, glaciers are advancing. 

Permafrost temperatures decreased until about 1970 and then began to increase. 

The increase appears to have slowed down recently. Meanwhile, the amount of CO2

has been increasing monotonically since 1900. 

These are a few examples to show that it is not appropriate to claim all warming 

trends are caused by the greenhouse effect. The collapse of houses built on permafrost is certainly man-made (heating), not a direct consequence of the greenhouse 

effect. There is too much confusion on such issues. 

Computer modeling has been improved greatly during the last decade or so. However, the computer is a very imperfect ‘‘earth’’ when we conduct CO2 experiments 

with it. For example, clouds cause warming by trapping infrared radiation, but 

cause cooling by reflecting solar energy back to space. Scientists are still debating 

which is more important. A computer behaves exactly as we instruct. Until we understand quantitatively all major processes related to climate change, a computer 

cannot provide reasonably accurate prediction on future climate. Computer modeling 

is now predicting the shrinking of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean in 2050 or 2100. However, the models cannot reproduce the seasonal changes; observations show the 

maximum shrinking in summer, while computer simulations indicate it to be in the 

winter. There are still many contradictions of this kind. We have too many unknown 

factors in instructing the computer. There is still too much unknown to rely completely on the computer to predict the temperature in 2100. 

Many scientists find warming trends, but can’t refer to their causes explicitly, and 

the press takes excerpts from these to claim that all warming is man-made. The 

scientific consensus is that large natural variations are superimposed on any trend 

caused by greenhouse effects. I would like to repeat that any decent scientist cannot 

claim explicitly how much the greenhouse effect is contributing to the present arctic 

warming trend. 

What is important here, aside from the debate on the cause of the warming, is 

that climate change is in progress and Alaskans have to face the trend seriously. 

Since the subject of coastal erosion is not my specialty, I consulted with several of 

my colleagues including Dr. Orson Smith, School of Engineering, UAA, Dr. John 

Walsh, International Arctic Research Center, and Dr. Glenn Juday, UAF. 

Coastal Erosion 

Sea level rise caused by global warming is expected to be about 40cm (∼16 inches) 

in 2100. With the present rate, it is not the most serious threat in the near future. 

The most important threat comes from the expected retreat of sea ice, exposing 

coastlines to wave/surge effects. 

According to the National Weather Service, there were 7 damaging coastal flood 

events during the last six years. Among them, five were caused by cyclones that 
82

were born in the open region of the Arctic Ocean and moved in the SW direction. 

Both Kivalina and Shishmaref are affected by this effect. This is a new trend. Furthermore, according to National Weather Service research, a number of intense cyclones over the entire Arctic have been increasing in recent years. However, it is 

hard to prove that such a trend is caused by global warming. 

In this report I would like to mention that Mr. Kenneth Toovak, Sr., Barrow, is 

of the opinion that the present bank-building in Barrow is not working. I would also 

like to add also that Dr. Orson Smith has made various presentations on the subject 

of design criteria in preventing coastal erosion. 

Permafrost Melting and Others 

The temperature of permafrost is near the melting point (0 °C/32 °F) in the interior of Alaska, so that permafrost in the Interior is quite sensitive to climate change, 

in particular to the present warming trend. As you are well aware, thawing of permafrost causes considerable damage to house structures, roads, forests, and other 

structures. 

In addition to the warming trend, the precipitation has decreased considerably in 

the Interior during recent years, causing a variety of effects on vegetation. Trees 

are suffering directly from this effect and also indirectly from insects. 

Mission of the International Arctic Research Center 

An important responsibility of scientists at IARC and the arctic research community is to reduce uncertainty of the present prediction of: the southern edge of sea 

ice of the Arctic Ocean; the occurrence of extreme events; permafrost temperature; 

temperature and precipitation; and shift of the tree line. 

The first two studies will be able to bring fruitful collaboration as we combine efforts of scientists and engineers at both UAF and UAA. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony today, and thank 

you for your interest in this important issue. Please feel free to contact me if you 

have any additional questions.

Chairman STEVENS. I must confess that the variety of reports 

we’ve had, it’s amazing we haven’t had more of these stations put 

up in Alaska. 

Dr. Karl, is your agency seeking establishment of these sort of 

listening posts in the area where this change is taking place? 

Dr. KARL. Yes, Senator. In fact, you asked a question earlier that 

I could clarify. My colleague from the National Weather Service did 

in fact indicate that 5 to 10 percent of the stations in Alaska are 

along the coast. It’s probably one of our greatest needs, is additional stations. 

We have a number of additional programs ongoing. We have a 

cooperative weather observation monitorization program going on 

in the agency, which over time will increase and improve the observing sites in Alaska. We have a couple of climate network stations and we’re working hard trying to increase the number up in 

Alaska. 

We have 20 or so tie gauges, which are extremely important to 

help pin down the satellite measurements from space. The measurement of precipitation, as I mentioned, also could be important 

for some of the inland areas for erosion. Yes, indeed we are trying 

to improve the networks. 

Chairman STEVENS. Are these floating buoys, are they the ones 

you’ve got permanently affixed to the land? 

Dr. KARL. Well, working in cooperation with some of the other 

agencies, I’ve asked to have some ice-tethered buoys in the Arctic 

to not only trying to measure ocean temperatures, but to actually 

look at the ice thickness because that also would be an important 

key, to look at how ice extent will change if we can better understand what ice thickness is actually doing. 
83

Chairman STEVENS. Are you working with the Corps of Engineers on this project, or is this your own? 

Dr. KARL. Right now we are not to my knowledge working with 

the Corps of Engineers on that project. We have in the past, 

around the 1980s, completed some spectral looking at wave extent 

for the Army Corps on a number of coastlines that enabled them 

to be able to use that for planning. 

To do those analyses requires a dedicated effort to go back and 

look at all the historical data and run a model consistently to generate data to see how they’re changing. Today you can actually 

project in the future on various scenarios to see how that might 

change. 

Chairman STEVENS. There’s no requested funding for additional 

sites? 

Dr. KARL. In the President’s budget there is funding for additional sites for a climate reference network and a weather 

monitorization program. 

Chairman STEVENS. In Alaska, that is? 

Dr. KARL. Two included in Alaska. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Akasofu, do you see any emergencies arising out of the information that’s available to you so far as far as the Arctic is concerned? Any of these things that have to be done now to try to deal 

with these changes that you predict? 

Dr. AKASOFU. What I can say is that what we call extreme 

events, they tend to happen in Alaska about once a year. But there 

is indication they’re increasing in number, but I do not see that 

right away immediately that the extreme events come once a year, 

so——

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Burns. 

Senator BURNS. This is an interesting discussion. I’m interested 

in these cyclones. Tell me what they are. I was raised in the Midwest. I know what a cyclone is as far as the Midwest is concerned. 

We call them tornadoes today, but they used to be called cyclones. 

Dr. KARL. Yes, and I apologize for not clarifying that. Probably 

the best way to describe it is in the Midwest it’s a winter storm, 

the kind of weather you get with a winter storm in the Midwest 

where you get winds and snow or rain. 

Senator BURNS. No. A cyclone—it’s a circular motion like a tornado. 

Dr. KARL. In terms of the terminology I use—I understand people 

have used the term cyclone or tornadoes in the Midwest, but tropical cyclones is a term that the scientific community has given to 

storms that are outside the tropics. Inside the tropics is a tropical 

cyclone. They really refer to large-scale circulations. These are circulations that are thousands of miles across, typical to the winter 

storms that you would see in the Midwest. When I said the number 

of intense winter cyclones are increasing, I’m referring to those 

kinds of storms that you would experience in the Midwest during 

the wintertime. 

Senator BURNS. But our storms aren’t circular. They’re just a 

straight wind, and on those blizzards and everything like that. I 

mean, that’s a straight wind. That has no circular motion to it at 

all. I’m not going to get into semantics with you. 
84

I would like to see some of your slides. I would like to take some 

slides that you showed us. I would like to have a copy of those, if 

I could. I would suggest that there’s a book on the market. It came 

out about 10 or 15 years ago written by a man by the name of Hancock, ‘‘Fingerprints of the Gods.’’ Have you read that? 

Dr. KARL. No, I haven’t. 

Senator BURNS. Have you ever heard about it? 

Dr. KARL. No, I haven’t. 

Senator BURNS. There’s a 28,000-year wobble in the Earth. I can 

have a man that’s got a doctorate in geology that would come up 

and tell you that the equator used to go across Montana. Where are 

we finding our dinosaurs in our digs? They’re found in the Dakotas 

and Montana. We know that their environment was tropical mostly, very warm, and that’s where we’re finding them today. 

Have we done any bores in the ice in the Arctic that would give 

us some idea of the changing of seasons? 

Dr. KARL. Yes, we have actually, Senator, have cores both in 

Greenland as well as Antarctica to help try and understand. I 

think perhaps what you’re referring to is the Milankovitch cycles. 

Senator BURNS. Have we had changes in climate this dramatic 

before in the history of those ice packs? 

Dr. KARL. One of the difficulties in looking at those today is trying to get the resolution that would be needed to look at a very 

small period of time like the erosion over the last 4 years. But indeed, there’s been large changes in the past that occurred over 

longer periods of time. There is an interesting issue—the National 

Research Council put out a report on the climate change. There is 

some suggestions in the past that indeed sometimes the climate 

can change very abruptly. For example, 11,500 years ago when the 

glaciers were melting and the St. Lawrence River broke into the 

Atlantic and changed the climate for 500 years in Europe and 

North America as the world was in fact warming. Indeed there is 

evidence in the past that we’ve had abrupt climate changes. 

Senator BURNS. Well, we had the Missoula flood, too, that went 

all the way to Portland. What I’m saying is that, yes, I think we’re 

in a climate change, but I think we’re always in a constant climate 

change. If there’s a wobble in the Earth, and Hancock pretty well 

substantiated that in this book that I would suggest you read, and 

it had to do with the building, of all things, the pyramids, and also 

how they relate to Machu Picchu and how similar mindsets—how 

they relate to each other and the times that they were built. And 

what happened to all of that knowledge it took to build a perfect 

pyramid went away for some reason or another. Also, the dinosaurs 

and other what we refer to as prehistoric animals. What happened 

to them, that lived in a tropical setting in a tropical environment, 

which that’s what their bones tell us. Yet they’re being found in an 

area where it’s basically very cold today and semi-arid. 

I think there has to be some reading on this. I’m not a very educated guy. I don’t have a college education. I just run cows. But it 

seems like even the rings of trees will tell us, the growth range of 

the canyon of the trees will tell us what kind of seasons we have. 

Dr. Akasofu, do you want to comment on that? 

Dr. AKASOFU. I think what you’re emphasizing is there are many 

natural changes, so the question is now—what’s happening now, is 
85

it natural changes or man-made or both? If both, how much is due 

to man-made? That’s the one that scientists are working on, emphasizing the major natural changes. 

Senator BURNS. Well, we know it wasn’t a man-made situation 

that done away with the dinosaurs, I don’t think. Thank you for 

these. I appreciate these slides and your information. Very interesting. I appreciate your testimony, too. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Dr. Burns, thank you very much. Dr. 

Sununu. 

Senator SUNUNU. I would also like a copy of the slides. I thought 

they were well done. 

Dr. Akasofu, you talked about the impact of the North Atlantic 

oscillator on the retreat of the sea ice in the North Atlantic, and 

that it’s a variation and the movement or the strength of that oscillator. Is there a good series of data going back 30 or 40 years to 

try to correlate? 

Dr. AKASOFU. That’s as far as we can go, and you can see that 

this temperature changes that go with the NAO, North Atlantic oscillation. They start to increase around 1920 and they reached a 

1940 maximum and then began to decrease until about 1970 and 

started to increase. 

Senator SUNUNU. So the blue line that says Arctic——

Dr. AKASOFU. The blue is Arctic and the red one is the global average that most people talk about. 

Senator SUNUNU. The blue line labeled Arctic, is that the temperature of the North Atlantic oscillator or the temperature at a 

particular point? 

Dr. AKASOFU. Around the Arctic coastline at more than 50 observatories and this is the average. It represents the Arctic situation. 

Senator SUNUNU. But it’s the land temperature or——

Dr. AKASOFU. Coastland, yes. So we have the effect of both the 

land and the ocean as well. The Arctic Ocean temperature changes 

in a similar way. So there’s a big natural change, as you can see, 

and what we have been—I’ve been looking at is the changes after 

1970. And our question is, we had something similar around 1920 

to 1940, so the question is: Is the increase after 1970 due to manmade or natural? We’re not sure yet. 

Senator SUNUNU. Do you have a similar time series that shows 

the inflows or the temperature of the inflows from the North Atlantic? 

Dr. AKASOFU. We have also a data from North Atlantic seawater, 

a very similar change. So we think that the inflow, the intensity 

changes all the time over a period. It’s very interesting, the Arctic 

temperature. 

Senator SUNUNU. You note in your testimony that there are some 

places here in Alaska that are advancing. Although you sort of indicate there are a large number of glaciers that are retreating. But 

you point out that in Norway most of the glaciers are advancing 

and advancing. Can you elaborate on that? Do you have any data 

to describe the rate of advancement of glaciers in Norway? 

Dr. AKASOFU. I think that most people think that when the NAO, 

North Atlantic oscillation, they tend to have more snow in the Norway area, so that’s maybe the cause. 
86

Senator SUNUNU. You also note that permafrost temperatures decreased until about 1970. How good is the data for showing that 

decrease, and how far back can we go before we lose accurate data? 

Dr. AKASOFU. This is permafrost temperature changes in Fairbanks and it’s very similar in Barrow as well. You can see that the 

temperature decreased quite a bit until about 1970 when it started 

to increase, so this is a period that, again, we were worrying about 

that all the permafrost is thawing. But now that trend seems to 

kind of slow. During this period, carbon dioxide is increasing so 

why this change in—we can’t correlate too well with CO2. But nevertheless this is a similar trend also in Siberia and other places 

similar change. 

Senator SUNUNU. Dr. Karl, one of the things that Dr. Akasofu described in his testimony is the computer technology of the modeling. We are fortunate to be in the age that the models and computers are constantly improving. He notes that existing models 

can’t reproduce seasonal changes accurately and that the observations show the maximum shrinkage of the Arctic ice in the summer, well, computer simulations indicate that it ought to be in the 

winter. 

Do you agree with those statements, or would you add anything? 

Dr. KARL. First off, I would like to add a few things. I just wanted to mention—perhaps the Senator might be interested—I do have 

a graph of the North Atlantic oscillation and the Arctic oscillation. 

Senator SUNUNU. Yes, if you could include that with your testimony, I would appreciate it. 

Dr. KARL. Clearly climate models are by no means perfect. They 

are, however, the best tool to understand what we might expect in 

the future. There are many flaws in models and people have written books about the flaws in the models. However, by and large, 

if we take a look at how we would evaluate them, what we’ve been 

able to do is go back in terms of looking at the past climate records 

and use the models to see if we could understand whether our understanding would be able to reproduce the gross features of past 

climate. 

In general, I think they have done a reasonably good job. When 

you begin to look at details, that’s when they begin to fall apart. 

I would agree there are still many improvements that need to be 

made and seasonal cycle is one issue, being able to reproduce the 

diurnal cycle is another issue. The list goes on. 

Senator SUNUNU. Final question, you mentioned clouds. Is it a 

matter of determining the tradeoff between their blanketing effect 

and their reflectivity? 

Dr. KARL. Yes. It’s a matter of high clouds versus low clouds, reflectivity. We’re struggling even to understand how clouds have 

changed based on the observed record with our satellites. So even 

if you were to give me a model that you believed perfect and you 

asked me to compare it with observations, I would have a hard 

time telling you which I believed, the model or the observations. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you. I think that all of us appreciate 

your taking the time, each of you doctors, to come and share your 

knowledge and interpretations with us. It may be necessary for us 

to pursue this further next year when we get the legislative efforts 

for sort of long-term legislation to deal with the phenomena we’re 
87

looking at now. I really would appreciate your help, Dr. Karl, if 

you’d tell us what you think we really need along the coastline to 

get some of this data that’s missing now. 

Dr. Akasofu, I know you know we’re putting some effort into Barrow and effort into the university there. We would like to have 

your guidance as to what you also think you would need to further 

your studies, Arctic Institute studies of these changes. Give us 

some indication of where you think this is going. 

The information that our trees are growing further up north, 

that there is less density to the permafrost on shore seems to be 

a phenomena that’s not exclusively along the coast. We don’t know 

if we’re going to have some changes on the land mass of the Arctic 

of Alaska that need attention in the foreseeable future. 

Dr. AKASOFU. We work with National Weather Service and 

NOAA, so we’re happy to work with Dr. Karl. 

Chairman STEVENS. This would be nice to have that cooperation 

between your people in the Arctic Institute that you head and 

NOAA, so we can get some guidance with regard to what else is 

going to happen in Alaska. The coastal storms, the coastal damage 

erosion is one that seems to be the most predicted right now, although I think that the timeframe is longer than we thought it was 

for the change. I think we have more time to work on it than was 

apparent. 

If it’s true that there are some 200 villages that are ultimately 

going to be affected along the coastline and along the rivers, I 

think we have to have a long-term plan to see what we can do and 

maybe bring about some relocation of the villages far before the crisis period arrives because it’s more expensive to move over a crisis 

than it is in the long term. 

COMMITTEE RECESS

But I do thank you very much for coming to help us understand 

the problem further. We’re going to recess this hearing and start 

again tomorrow morning at 8:30. Tomorrow we’re going to listen to 

the Alaska villagers, tribal organizations, and we also have one 

witness who has some commercial expertise in erosion prevention 

and mitigation that may be of interest to you, also. So we do thank 

all the witnesses this morning, and we will recess until 8:30 tomorrow morning. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., Tuesday, June 29, the committee was 

recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 30.]

(89)

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE EROSION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Anchorage, AK. 

The committee met at 8:40 a.m., in the Z.J. Loussac Public Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Ted Stevens 

(chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Stevens and Burns. 

Also present: Senators Murkowski and Sununu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Chairman STEVENS. I’d like to call Representative Joule, Mr. 

Ahmaogak, Ms. Bullard and Mr. Naneng to the table, please. We 

welcome you all to the second day of these hearings. Yesterday was 

a very successful day for us. We learned a great deal from the scientific and government people who were here. 

We were pleased to hear that HUD has a plan now to allow the 

leveraging of $100 million to start the process of dealing with some 

of these areas that are threatened by erosion, and we will follow 

through with them when we get back to Washington. 

This is a United States Senate Appropriations field hearing. Senate Murkowski and I thank our colleagues, Conrad Burns and John 

Sununu, for joining us, and I thank the witnesses who have traveled here from very many remote locations to present testimony 

today. 

There are three panels of witnesses this morning. Each panel 

will have multiple witnesses, and to keep the hearing on schedule 

I request, again, as we did yesterday, that the witnesses not speak 

for more than 8 minutes. Senators will hold their questions until 

all the panel has testified, and then we will ask questions and stay 

within the allotted time for each panel. 

The first panel is allowed 1 hour; the second panel, 1 hour; and 

the third panel 1 hour and 15 minutes. We have witnesses from 

Alaska’s community organizations and regional and State elected 

officials, as well as one witness who has expertise in erosion prevention and mitigation. 

These 2 days of field hearings are a result of an appropriations 

field hearing held in Fairbanks in May 2001 on the impacts of climate change in the Arctic and the congressional directed General 

Accounting Office report to study Alaska Native villages affected by 

severe erosion and flooding to determine what Federal and State 

programs may be able to provide assistance. 
90

It’s critical to hear from people who have witnessed the flooding 

and erosion to understand the magnitude and severity of how the 

villages have been impacted and changed in many ways forever the 

Alaska coastline and ecosystems. 

Senator Burns is a member of the Appropriations Committee. 

We’ll call on him first. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday was a very 

fruitful day. I have no formal statement. I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses. 

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM

ALASKA

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too appreciate 

the hearings and gained a lot from what we heard yesterday. While 

I don’t serve on the Appropriations Committee, I do serve on three 

committees that do have certainly an interest in what is going on 

here this morning and yesterday. I serve on the Environment and 

Public Works Committee. We’ve got oversight of natural hazards 

and flood control issues. Also on the Indian Affairs Committee and 

Energy, which does have certain ties here today. 

I won’t be able to stay with you for the full morning. I am convening a summit on domestic violence at 10 a.m. this morning, but 

my chief of staff will be here throughout the morning and will be 

listening and reporting back to me as to the comments that we 

hear this morning. 

I would like to offer just a couple brief observations on what we 

gathered yesterday. In my opinion the Congress and the State need 

to be focused on two very distinct issues. The first is how we protect our communities from the flood and storms while they remain 

in their locations, and the second component is how do we find the 

resources to move these communities if relocation is the route to 

go for a long-term solution. 

I would ask those that will be presenting this morning—I’m very 

interested in your experiences that each of you have had in your 

communities working with the Corps of Engineers as well as the 

other Federal agencies that are involved. Are they engaged in your 

problems? Do they understand? Are they helping in the level and 

in the manner in which you really need? And if not, what can they 

do—what can we do to improve this? 

And I would look forward to hearing your perspectives from that 

angle. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate again the opportunity to join you this 

morning, and I’m so very pleased that we could have our colleagues 

from Montana and New Hampshire join us as well. 

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Sununu, do you have a statement 

this morning? 

Senator SUNUNU. I’d simply like to thank the witnesses for travelling to be here. The testimony yesterday was outstanding and I 

don’t think we could possibly develop the depth of understanding 

for a problem like this without this kind of thorough hearing. So 

it’s extremely helpful and I look forward to today’s testimony. 
91

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. On our first panel is 

Representative Reggie Joule. Representative Joule represents District 40 in the Alaska Legislature. 

Good morning, Representative. I would, again, ask that all witnesses hold their statements to 8 minutes. We’re pleased to hear 

from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. REGGIE JOULE, ALASKA STATE REPRESENTATIVE 

Mr. JOULE. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Senator 

Murkowski, welcome home. Senator Burns and Senator Sununu, 

welcome to Alaska. 

My name is Reggie Joule, for the record. I am from the community of Kotzebue, Alaska, located just 30 miles north of the Arctic 

Circle where this time of the year the Sun does not set. I represent 

House District 40, which stretches from the Canadian border in the 

north, encompasses all of the North Slope and down to the 

Kotzebue area, the Northwest Arctic Borough, and over to 

Shishmaref, almost from the Canadian border to the Russian border, 19 communities in my district in an area of about 120,000 

square miles. 

In Alaska we are bound on three sides by coast, over 6,000 miles 

of coastline. This accounts for more than half of the entire U.S. 

coastline. We also have 12,000 rivers, 3 of the 10 largest in the 

country; the Yukon, the Kuskokwin and the Copper. While we are 

the largest in the United States in mass, we’re, I think, way down 

second to the last in terms of number of people. We have just over 

600,000 people, of which 19 percent or approximately 120,000 are 

Alaska’s Native people. Many of Alaska Native people live in remote villages and have been there for generations. 

Most of our villages are located along the coastline or our river 

systems and we have located to those places because of the resources that are there, food resources. And today and for a few 

years now erosion is threatening many of our homes. As you heard 

yesterday, 184 communities are impacted either by coastline erosion or flooding. While many of the problems with erosion and 

flooding are longstanding, various studies indicate that coastal villages are becoming more susceptible to flooding and erosion due, in 

part, to our changing temperatures. 

The Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks has compiled some interesting data on mean annual temperature trends in Alaska for the 

1971 to 2000 time period as indicated by some of the data below. 

In Barrow, for instance, annual temperatures increased 4.16 degrees with spring temperatures increasing 6.97 degrees. Kotzebue: 

Annual temperatures increased 1.68 degrees with spring temperatures increasing 3.56 degrees. And in Bethel, annual temperatures 

increased 3.08 degrees while spring temperatures increased a 

whopping 7.64 degrees. 

Additionally, a 1999 report for the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program found that the extent and thickness of sea ice in the Arctic has decreased substantially with thickness decreasing by more 

than 4 feet or approximately 40 percent. Thickness at one point 

was at 10 feet; today it’s measured at 6 feet, and that is kind of 

an add-on to some of what you heard yesterday. 
92

Let’s talk about some things at the State level first. Currently, 

there are no specific State programs or funding for erosion management. The three main departments in the State of Alaska that help 

assist with erosion and flooding on an emergency basis are the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Community 

and Economic Development (DCED), and the Office of Emergency 

Management (OEM). The State currently only has one staff member in DCED to work on floodplain erosion management and this 

position is largely funded by the Federal Government through the 

FEMA program. Generally speaking, the State departments don’t 

have the authority to focus on prevention of problems, but rather 

deal with situations when it is an emergency and life or property 

is threatened. 

There is no State program to fund mitigation projects outside of 

a federally-declared disaster or in special instances if the State 

were to make special appropriations. The Office of Emergency 

Management intervenes only when there’s ‘‘an occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or 

property, shortage of food or fuel from an incident.’’

A State or Federal disaster declaration must be issued before the 

OEM can assist. Similarly, the other departments intervene only 

when disaster strikes. 

The only available funding for erosion problems has been as a 

supplemental request when an emergency arises. Oftentimes, like 

in the case of Shishmaref, it’s taken some time to be able to get 

some of that funding. The Alaska State Legislature has begun to 

recognize the issues, but this recognition has been long in coming. 

This year the State legislature passed Senate Joint Resolution 25, 

a resolution which recognized Alaska’s erosion problems and requested the Federal Government to ease some of its requirements 

for the funding. Unfortunately, recognition has come at a time 

when the State is struggling financially, so there aren’t the financial resources available that we would like to have to address some 

of these issues. 

Let’s talk about some of the possible solutions, first at the State 

level, and then we’ll move on to the Federal level. Possible solutions to expand the role of the Denali Commission or a State department, such as DCED, to include managing a flood and erosion 

assistance program and fund and staff the entity appropriately so 

that it can begin to tackle the problem. The designated agent 

should be an entity that already has a positive relationship with 

rural Alaska and an alliance with the construction industry. The 

agent can work to ensure that by hiring reputable and experienced 

engineers, hydrologists, and other professionals erosion abatement 

money is maximized. 

Designate the same entity to coordinate the erosion issue between the State and Federal government. 

Adopt a statewide erosion plan, which includes an assessment of 

the villages. 

Adopt State policies about building infrastructure in threatened 

areas or a policy covering structural erosion control projects. Develop a planning process so capital facilities are built outside of 

erosion and flooding zones or are built so that they can be moved 

at a later date. Policies should also be adopted regarding relocation 
93

of villages that include site selection criteria that ensures a village 

will not have to be relocated for a long period of time. We don’t 

need to be going through this over and over. 

Adopt State legislation on flood/erosion plan management, if 

needed. 

Provide designated funding for erosion management. 

Educate both State and Federal officials about the erosion and 

flooding problems and how best to combat erosion abatement. 

When working through all of the ideas outlined above, rural 

Alaskans should be included in the process. Additionally, if communities are relocated, the residents should be allowed to maintain 

their connection to the area. 

Chairman STEVENS. The time? 

Mr. JOULE. Yes. The cost-benefit analysis: Federal agencies 

aren’t allowed to undertake projects whose costs exceed expected 

benefits. So you heard some about this yesterday. 

But in closing, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, direct 

the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NCRS) to include social and environmental factors in their 

cost-benefit analysis for requested projects, and to consider the economic impact of lost subsistence resources. 

Direct the Corps and NCRS to account for the higher cost of construction and fuel. 

And, Mr. Chairman, the rest of this is on my written statement 

for your review. I just would like to say that remote Alaska villages 

face challenges found nowhere else, and these obstacles range from 

harsh climates, the permafrost issues, limited infrastructure. And 

we urge this committee to consider action and help many of the villages in the State. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. There’s no question 

that your district has substantial problems right now, and we’ll 

work with you, the State legislature in January. We will have some 

suggestions for the legislature too. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. REGGIE JOULE

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in this important hearing 

today. My name is Representative Reggie Joule and I represent House District 40. 

I represent a unique area of the state. My district stretches from the Canadian to 

the Russian Border. It is an area rich in natural resources (Prudhoe Bay and Red 

Dog Mine). It is also an area that has been inhabited by the Inupiat for thousand 

of years. Today I am here to talk with you about erosion and flooding in our remote 

area of the state. 

Introduction and Background 

First, one must ask why Alaska as a state is having such a problem with erosion 

and flooding. In part, it is because as the largest state we have an enormous coastline and river system. 

—Alaska encompasses 365 million acres, more than the combined area of the next 

3 largest states (Texas, California and Montana). 

—Our state is bound on three sides by water and has a coastline of 6,600 miles. 

—Our coastline accounts for more then half of the entire U.S. Coastline. 

—Alaska also has more then 12,000 rivers, including three of the ten largest in 

the country (Yukon, Kuskokwim and Copper Rivers). 

—Although the largest state, Alaska is the second least populated state with only 

630,000 people of which 19 percent or about 120,000 are Alaska Natives. 

—Many Alaska Natives live in remote villages that have been inhabited by the 

same families for generations. Most of these villages are located along a coast-
94

1 Note that many rural villages do not have a naturally occurring gravel source to build a seawall or other protective system. This means the gravel for a project must be barged in to an 

area from the nearest source, which can be a significant distance. This of course adds a significant cost to the project. 

line or river system so that Native people can utilize the food resources. Today 

erosion threatens many of our homes. 

In fact, flooding and erosion impacts 184 out of 213 Alaska Native villages or 

about 86 percent of the villages. (Number of villages impacted may be higher but 

quantifiable data for remote villages is unavailable). Between 1972 and 1991, the 

state spent over $40 million for erosion control statewide. 

What are the potential causes of the erosion and flooding and why has it worsened 

in recent years? 

While many of the problems with erosion and flooding are long-standing, various 

studies indicate that coastal villages are becoming more susceptible to flooding and 

erosion due, in part, to rising temperatures. The Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks 

has compiled some interesting data on mean annual temperature trends in Alaska 

for the 1971 to 2000 time period as indicated by the data below: 

—Barrow: Annual temperature increased 4.16 degrees with spring temperatures 

increasing 6.97 degrees. 

—Kotzebue: Annual temperatures increased 1.68 degrees with spring temperatures increasing 3.56 degrees. 

—Bethel: Annual temperatures increased 3.08 degrees with spring temperatures 

increasing a whopping 7.64 degrees! 

Additionally, a 1999 report for the U.S. Global Change Research Program found 

that the extent and thickness of sea ice in the Arctic has decreased substantially 

with thickness decreasing by more then 4 feet (from 10 feet to 6 feet thick). 

Rising temperatures cause protective shore ice to form later in the year leaving 

villages vulnerable to fall storms because the shore ice that would normally protect 

the shore from the crashing waves isn’t there. Moreover, with less ice, storm surges 

have become more sever because large, open water areas generate larger and more 

destructive waves. This has resulted in more serious erosion in recent years with 

over 100 feet of land being lost in a single storm. A village in my district called 

Shishmaref, which is only 1,320 feet wide, lost 125 feet of beach to erosion in a single storm in October 1977. 

In recent years rising temperatures have also resulted in widespread thawing of 

the permafrost, causing serious damage. Melting and thawing permafrost is also 

more sensitive to small variations in temperatures. (1997 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As permafrost melts buildings, bulk fuel tank 

farms, and runways sink. Additionally, river villages are impacted by erosion and 

flooding caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, heavy rainfall and rising sea 

levels all of which have been exacerbated by rising temperatures and melting permafrost. 

Gaining perspective by taking a closer look at some specific villages and the erosion 

and flooding problems they face 

I would like to familiarize you with this topic by taking a look at some of the villages in my district. I represent 19 villages, 16 of which are impacted by erosion 

and flooding. The villages impacted by coastal erosion are Barrow, Kaktovik, Point 

Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Kivalina, Kotzebue, Deering and Shishmaref. The villages impacted by river erosion and flooding are Nuiqsut, Ambler, Buckland, Kiana, 

Kobuk, Noatak, Noorvik, and Selawik.1

In the district I represent two villages, Shishmaref and Kivalina, are in imminent 

danger of flooding. These two villages are planning to relocate entirely. 

Shishmaref 

Shishmaref is a small village of about 562 people. It lies on a barrier island in 

the Chukchi Sea and experiences chronic erosion along the shorelines. The island 

is no wider then a quarter of a mile. Since the 1970s the community has tried a 

variety of erosion protection measures, from sandbags and gabion seawalls to a concrete block mat. Ultimately, all of the attempts failed to prevent long-term erosion. 

To date 19 homes have been moved to prevent them from literally falling into the 

sea. The community is currently working on constructing a temporary seawall, 

which is expected to last 10 to 15 years, to give the village time to relocate. Money 

for the seawall is coming from several sources including the State of Alaska, the 

Corps of Engineers (Corps), Kawarek Corporation, and other federal monies. The 

village is currently working with Natural Resource Conservation Services (NCRS) 

on selecting an appropriate site to build a new village. 
95

Kivalina 

Kivalina is a small village of about 377 people. It also lies on a barrier island that 

is surrounded by the Chukchi Sea and Kivalina Lagoon. The village is shrinking 

from chronic erosion on both shorelines. There is no further room for expansion and 

the only option for the village is to relocate. It is believed that the right combination 

of storms could flood the entire village at any time, resulting in the loss of property 

and life. Cost estimates to relocate the village range from $100 million to $400 million. The village is working with the Corps on finding possible new sites as the first 

two site selections for a new village failed to meet certain criteria. 

Other villages in my area are conducting flooding and erosion studies or are improving infrastructure to cope with flooding and erosion problems. Below is a sampling of the villages and the issues they face: 

Kaktovik 

The village of Kaktovik is located on Barter Island at the northern edge of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The village has a problem with the runway, which 

floods every fall, shutting the airport down for several days at a time. When evaluating the situation it is important to note that for many remote communities the 

only real access to urban facilities, including hospitals, is by air. A flood study at 

the airport has been conducted. The village, with the assistance of the FAA, is now 

exploring whether it is cheaper to fix the existing airport or to build a new runway 

in a different location that won’t flood. The FAA will support the least-cost alternative and will fund 93.75 percent of the project with the local government covering 

the rest of the cost. 

Kotzebue 

Kotzebue is a second-class city with a population of about 3,082 and serves as the 

urban center for all of the villages in the Northwest region. The city is located on 

a spit surrounded by the Chukchi Sea and Kotzebue Sound. In recent years, former 

Governor Knowles declared the road along the beachfront (Shore Avenue) area a 

disaster due to washout caused by severe fall storms. This summer the community 

will rebuild the road infrastructure with the assistance of the Department of Emergency Services. In 2006, the city will work with the Department of Transportation 

to prevent further erosion by building a seawall along the shoreline in front of the 

city. 

Barrow 

Barrow is a first-class city with a population over 4,000. The city is located on 

the Chukchi Sea and serves as the urban center for all of the villages in the North 

Slope Borough. It is estimated that approximately $500 million of Barrow’s infrastructure is located in the flood plain. Barrow, in conjunction with the Corps, has 

a study underway for coping with beachfront erosion that threatens the village’s 

multi-million dollar utility corridor and local landfill. In the past, the city has used 

sandbags and dredging to rebuild the beachfront and to prevent erosion with little 

success. North Slope Borough officials estimate that each time there is a flood it 

costs the community approximately $500,000. 

Point Hope 

Point Hope is located near the end of a triangular spit, which juts 15 miles into 

the Chukchi Sea. This peninsula is one of the longest continually inhabited areas 

in Northwest America. Some of the earliest residents came to the peninsula some 

2,000 years ago after crossing the Siberian land bridge. Today some 800 people call 

Point Hope home. Due to concerns about erosion and flooding, Point Hope is researching alternatives for an emergency evacuation road and relocating the runway. 

Noatak 

Noatak is located on the west bank of the Noatak River, 55 miles north of 

Kotzebue. It is about 60 feet above sea level. Approximately 400 people, mostly of 

Inupiaq Eskimo descent, call this small community home. Due to flooding the community of Noatak had to move graves and build a new graveyard. The project is 

still not complete, as a road to the new gravesite remains unfinished. The changing 

course of the river and riverbank erosion has also forced about half of the residents 

to relocate or move their existing homes. The residents have done most of the work 

on their own with little to no assistance from the state. 

Noorvik 

Noorvik is also a river community. It is located on the bank of the Nazuruk Channel on the Kobuk River. Approximately 550 people call Noorvik home. Noorvik also 

had to relocate its airport due to flooding. 
96

As you can see from these examples, the erosion and flooding problem is very real 

and costly in Alaska. We need help. 

What state programs are available to assist villages with erosion and flooding and 

why aren’t they working? 

There is no specific state program or funding for erosion management. The three 

main departments that help assist with erosion and flooding on an emergency basis 

are the Department of Transportation, Department of Community and Economic 

Development (DCED), and the Office of Emergency Management. The state has only 

one staff member in DCED to work on flood plain erosion management and this position is largely funded by the federal government (75 percent) through the FEMA 

program. Generally speaking, the state departments don’t have the authority to 

focus on prevention of problems but rather deal with the situation when it is an 

emergency and life or property is threatened. There is no state program to fund 

mitigation projects, outside of a federally-declared disaster. The Office of Emergency 

Management intervenes only when there is ‘‘an occurrence or imminent threat of 

widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or property, shortage of food, or 

fuel from an incident.’’ See A.S. 26.23. A state or federal disaster declaration must 

be issued before the OEM can assist. Similarly, the other departments intervene 

only when disaster strikes. 

The only available funding for erosion problems has been as a supplemental request when an emergency arises. Oftentimes, like in the case of Shishmaref, it has 

taken years to get funding. Shishmaref began asking for money to build a seawall 

around 1984. During the intervening years it did receive sporadic funding ($1.7 million) and built a partial seawall that failed. Finally this year Shishmaref received 

some state funding to build a partial seawall, which will help protect the village for 

another 10 to 15 years while it relocates. There is no statewide erosion policy or 

plan on how to tackle the problem. There is no state policy about building infrastructure in threatened areas or a policy covering structural erosion control projects. 

Therefore, there is no planning process to insure that capital facilities are built outside of erosion and flooding zones or built so that they can be moved at a later date. 

In fact, there is no state legislation on flood/erosion plain management at all. There 

is no state or federal agency designated or funded to coordinate erosion control between the state and federal governments. In sum, there is a real lack of state resources to address erosion problems. 

The Alaska State Legislature has begun to recognize the issues but this recognition has been long in coming. This year the legislature passed SJR 25, a resolution 

which recognized Alaska’s erosion problems and requested the federal government 

to ease some of its requirements for funding. Unfortunately, recognition has come 

at a time when the state is struggling financially, so there aren’t the financial resources available that we would like to have to address the problems. Additionally, 

there are a number of legislators who favor funding projects in urban areas of the 

state where most of the population resides. There are also a few legislators who believe that no money should be spent in rural areas and that threatened village residents should simply move to the city. 

What are some possible solutions to the erosion problem on the state level? 

Listed below are some possible solutions to Alaska’s erosion and flooding problem: 

—Expand the role of the Denali Commission or a state department to include 

managing a flood and erosion assistance program and fund and staff the entity 

appropriately so that it can begin to tackle the problem. The designated agent 

should be an entity that already has a positive relationship with rural Alaska 

and an alliance with the construction industry. The agent can work to ensure 

that by hiring reputable and experienced engineers, hydrologists, and other professionals erosion abatement money is maximized. 

—Designate the same entity to coordinate the erosion issue between the state and 

federal government. 

—Adopt a statewide erosion plan, which includes an assessment of the villages. 

—Adopt state policies about building infrastructure in threatened areas or a policy covering structural erosion control projects. Develop a planning process so 

capital facilities are built outside of erosion and flooding zones or are built so 

that they can be moved at a later date. Policies should also be adopted regarding relocation of villages that include site selection criteria that ensures a village will not have to be relocated in the foreseeable future. 

—Adopt state legislation on flood/erosion plain management if needed. 

—Provide designated funding for erosion management. 

—Educate both state and federal officials about the erosion and flooding problems 

and how best to combat erosion abatement. 
97

—When working through all of the ideas outlined above rural Alaskans should be 

included in the process. Additionally, if communities are relocated the residents 

should be allowed to maintain their connection to the area. 

Adoption of any of these measures would be a step in the right direction. 

What federal programs are available to assist villages with erosion and flooding and 

why aren’t they working? 

The principal federal programs that prevent and control erosion and flooding are 

administered by the Corps of Engineers (Continuing Authorities Program) and the 

Natural Resource Conservation Services (Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention). The problem with these programs is that the villages usually fail to qualify 

for federal assistance because they can’t meet the federal requirements listed below: 

—Cost Benefit Analysis.—Federal agencies aren’t allowed to undertake projects 

whose costs exceed expected benefits. This requirement fails to account for social or environmental factors, or the economic or cultural value of subsistence. 

Only one NCRS program, the Emergency Watershed Protection program, accounts for these factors. Additionally, there is no adjustment to account for the 

high cost of construction and fuel in remote areas. Most villages fail to meet 

this requirement. 

—Match Requirement.—The match requirement requires local communities to 

fund between 25 to 50 percent of the project. A few programs will waive this 

requirement. Some of the poorest communities in the state are being asked to 

contribute thousands of dollars in match money, a requirement they simply 

can’t meet. 

How can we solve the funding issue and get the needed resources to our villages? 

Listed below are some possible funding solutions to Alaska’s erosion and flooding 

problems: 

—Direct the Corps and the NCRS to include social and environmental factors in 

their cost/benefit analysis for requested projects, and to consider the economic 

impact of lost subsistence resources. An additional consideration might also be 

whether a cultural heritage site or a national historic landmark is at risk. 

(Point Hope is recognized as a nationally significant cultural site as is Barrow 

and many other villages); 

—Direct the Corps and NCRS to account for the higher cost of construction and 

fuel in Alaska in the cost/benefit analysis; 

—Waive the federal cost share requirements for flooding and erosion projects in 

Alaska; 

OR

—Fund the Denali Commission with specific provisions that the funds can be used 

by the communities to meet the required cost share provisions; 

—Authorize the bundling of funds from various agencies to respond to flooding 

and erosion; 

—Earmark some of the federal income from the state for oil, timber or other natural resources revenues to fund erosion and flooding projects in Alaska; and 

—Expand the role of the Denali Commission to include managing a flood and erosion assistance program. 

Remote Alaska villages face challenges found nowhere else in the United States. 

These obstacles range from harsh climates, ice-rich permafrost soils, limited infrastructure, high fuel and shipping prices, short construction seasons, and limited or 

no access to transportation networks. The proposed changes outlined above would 

give federal agencies more flexibility and would allow them to address Alaska’s 

unique rural flooding and erosion challenges. I urge you to seriously consider these 

changes and help Alaska begin to tackle erosion and flooding. 

Thank you for your time.

Chairman STEVENS. Good morning, Mayor. It’s nice to see you. 

Appreciate you coming down to be with us from Barrow. Can we 

have your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE AHMAOGAK, SR., MAYOR, NORTH SLOPE 

BOROUGH, BARROW, ALASKA 

Mr. AHMAOGAK. My name is Mayor George Ahmaogak. I’m now 

serving my fifth term in office. Each term is 3 years. You can see 

I’ve went through a lot of storm-related situations in my time. 
98

I represent the North Slope Borough. The North Slope Borough 

is the regional government for northern Alaska charged with responding to storm-related emergencies and planning for erosion 

control. Five of our villages are coastal and have significant erosion 

problems. Sandy soils, low elevation, and permafrost make erosion 

a fact of life in Arctic Alaska. Unlike most soils, exposed permafrost warms and melts then slumps and washes away. Instead of 

helping to rebuild beaches, erosion material on our shores just disappears. 

A strong warming trend has led to multiple shrinking of the Arctic Ocean ice and has made our subsistence way more difficult from 

my personal observation. Gravel was scraped from Barrow’s beaches in 1940 for the construction of the Naval Arctic Research Lab. 

The same approach was used for the construction of the State of 

Alaska airport runway for the Will Rogers Airport in Barrow. This 

loss of beach material accelerated erosion along the shore. 

Storms have the greatest impact on erosion in our coastal villages. Storms in 1954, 1963, and 1986 caused extensive flooding 

and carried away large chunks of our coastline. The 1986 storm resulted in the State of Alaska disaster declaration for all of our 

coastal communities. Federal and State private studies of coastal 

erosion in our region have documented the problems for 50 years 

or more. Estimates of the annual loss of soils from coastal areas 

suggest that we’re losing an average of about 4 feet of coastline per 

year. 

The airport runways at the coastal villages of Kaktovik near the 

Canadian border and Point Hope to the west of Barrow flood each 

and every year cutting these communities off from any transportation link to the outside world. 

Our whaling culture is tied to the sea and our coastal villages 

are in traditional locations for access to subsistence activities. Erosion is a constant challenge for us. We welcome your interest in 

this problem, and we look forward to Federal participation in finding solutions. I also want to mention the fact that the North Slope 

Borough as part of the solution has supported the effort in creating 

the Barrow Global Climate Change Research Facility. I’m sure 

you’ve seen my letters time and time over, the letter-writing campaign, supporting the need for this research facility to start now 

getting the baseline data of the climate changes taking place. We 

still wholeheartedly support that. My understanding is now that 

we’re in a planning stage of this facility. 

We are in extreme need of getting that baseline data to find out 

what exactly in scientific terms is going on with the global changes 

that are taking place. If I had a message to you this morning, I 

would accelerate my interest in that facility and you make it a reality. I think science is one method and baseline data is what we 

need to find out what the problem is. Barrow is going to be the 

host of this research facility. So we need your support in that effort 

to make this a reality. 

I had a question on the Corps of Engineers—in our experience 

with the Corps of Engineers. As you know, we have other coastal 

villages that are subject to the flooding. Barrow is one of the worst 

ones. We have a memorandum of understanding with the Corps of 

Engineers to deal with our erosion problem and that other local 
99

government at this stage will pay 50 percent of the local costs—

of the overall costs in restoration and engineering and construction 

mitigation of any flooding to take place. 

Unfortunately, ironically, the other villages that are subject to 

erosion as well, we can’t convince the Corps of Engineers to meet 

their criteria to be able to be accepted just like Barrow is. Our municipality is very interested in trying to do that. We have been trying to overcome that problem of getting those other villages recognized by the Corps of Engineers so they can have a mitigation plan, 

a design plan and a construction plan for the coastal erosion that 

takes place. 

Barrow is the only one that we’ve worked so hard to be able to 

make it a reality. So we have a memorandum of understanding 

with the Corps of Engineers just for Barrow. The other three outlying villages need the Army Corps of Engineers. If there are any 

solutions to be had, I would suggest that any assistance you can 

offer to try to convince the Corps of Engineers to include those 

three other villages. We’re willing and able to try and work with 

them. It’s like working with a brick wall and the bureaucratic process you have to do to qualify some of these villages is astronomical. 

I just wanted to mention that we do have an MOA just for Barrow and we’re willing to pay capital costs. We’re fortunate enough 

to have the resources in local funds to be able to pay the 50 percent 

share of the capital costs. I feel also—what about the other rural 

Alaskans, which they don’t have financial resources to even come 

up with their 50 percent share of the costs. You know yourself that 

rural Alaska is in a real critical financial situation out there. They 

will never have the financial resources to be able to address those 

needs. 

I feel for those guys that are having the same problems we are 

but have no financial resources. I want to talk about disaster declarations at the local level when we do have storms that are like 

we had in 1986. We made emergency declarations at the local level. 

It’s a tedious process. Once you make a declaration, then you have 

to get the State of Alaska to also agree with your declaration and 

the Federal level. 

The responsibility and burden of proof is laid on the local communities to make that disaster declaration and the damage assessments that need to be done so they can get it termed as a disaster. 

We’re going through this tedious process of meeting those requirements. Fortunately, the borough has been able to do that. At times 

when we declared a disaster, we couldn’t get the State of Alaska 

to agree with us. Now it’s the local communities that bear the costs 

for these disasters. 

You can’t convince the State, you can’t convince the Federal 

agencies and FEMA. I think if there was suggestions and solutions 

to this all, there needs to be improvement on the declaration process and when these coastal villages declare declaration, they need 

help now. You have to understand, they have no telephone when 

they have a disaster, no communication. 

We’re fortunate in the North Slope Borough to have the resources. When we declare a declaration, we can call out, then do 

the damage assessment with our staff and try to convince the State 

and then try to convince the Federal process and the FEMA proc-
100

ess. That’s an extreme awful difficult process. If there’s any suggestions or solutions to be had, once a local community declares a declaration, they need help and that means improvement, at least for 

now when they declare disaster declaration. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify here. I’ll stay within 

my 8 minutes. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you, Mayor. Nice to have you here. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE N. AHMAOGAK, SR. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share information and local perspectives on erosion in the northernmost coastal communities of Alaska. These problems have become severe in recent decades and give every indication of worsening in the future. 

Background 

The North Slope Borough is the regional government for the entire area north of 

the Brooks Range. Our municipal powers make us the entity charged with responding to storm-related emergencies, addressing near-term erosion issues, and planning 

a coordinated response to the long-term effects of erosion in all of our communities. 

The North Slope Borough has several thousand miles of coastline within its borders and thousands of miles of rivers. Our people reside in eight villages, all of 

which have historic ties to our Inupiat Eskimo ancestors. Five of the eight communities—Kaktovik, Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay and Point Hope—are located 

along the coast. Two others—Nuiqsut and Atqasuk—are situated on rivers and experience some of the same problems, though to a much lesser degree. 

Our prevailing sandy soils, low elevations and permafrost probably guarantee a 

certain amount of erosion as a fact of life on the Arctic coastal plain. Our average 

tidal change is only around a foot, but wave action during storms can create ocean 

surges of ten feet or more. Since much of the region is just a few feet above sea 

level, the effects of storms can be devastating. A 1963 storm, for example, flooded 

millions of acres along the coast. 

Our sandy soils and permafrost tend to aggravate storm-related erosion considerably. The sandy soils are easily eroded, and as their ice-rich underpinnings are exposed in shoreside bluffs, they simply melt and wash away instead of replenishing 

the beach as most soils do. 

Human Factors in North Slope Erosion 

Human interventions in the past 50 years have aggravated the natural occurrence 

of erosion considerably. A strong warming trend in the Arctic has led to very noticeable declines in the extent of the Arctic ice pack. Our whaling communities comment on this frequently, as the retreating ice pack increases the open water area 

during whaling season and makes whaling more difficult. A greater expanse of open 

water also allows storms to generate more wave action, making them more damaging when they hit the shore. 

Construction activities have also accelerated erosion. When the Navy built the 

Naval Arctic Research Lab near Barrow during the 1940s, gravel was scraped off 

nearby beaches for use in roads and building pads. Similarly, gravel was mined 

from local beaches for the construction of Barrow’s first airport runway. These 

changes to the natural slope of the waterfront noticeably increased erosion in subsequent years. 

Storm Damage and Responses in Recent History 

Storms in 1954, 1963 and 1986 were the most significant erosion events in the 

past half-century. The September 1986 storm did significant damage to the North 

Slope. As a result, all the coastal communities of the North Slope Borough were declared disaster emergencies by the State of Alaska. This classification resulted in 

FEMA and the North Slope Borough developing a Hazard Mitigation Plan. This 

plan resulted in repairs to infrastructure in the communities, but no mitigation of 

future erosion was possible under the program. 

After a pair of storms in September of 1986, the North Slope Borough hired the 

firm of Tekmarine from California to inspect the storm damage and evaluate various protection measures. Tekmarine was a coastal engineering firm that had been 

providing erosion protection to the oil industry at Prudhoe Bay in support of offshore island construction. The report, completed in 1987, was titled Bluff and Shoreline Protection Study for Barrow, Alaska. It is relevant to both Barrow and Wainwright, due to the similarities of coastal conditions at both communities. 
101

Page 1 of the Tekmarine report includes a statement that reflected conditions at 

the time of the storm and has only grown more relevant as time has passed:

‘‘The coastal erosion at Barrow has been recorded in scientific literature for at 

least the past 30 years, but the erosion has become a serious problem recently as 

it began to threaten the local community. In particular, the receding bluff-line has 

encroached upon the housing and the streets of Barrow, and it is feared that the 

spit separating the sewage and fresh-water lagoons may be breached if the shoreline 

erosion is allowed to continue.’’

Page 9 of the Tekmarine report reviews some of the documented history of North 

Slope coastal erosion. While the comments are specific to Barrow, these or similar 

events have occurred at all the coastal communities within the North Slope Borough 

over the last 60 years:

‘‘The most devastating single episode of bluff erosion in this region occurred during the storm of October 3, 1963, described as ‘the worst storm in the memory of 

the Eskimo people’ (Hume and Schalk, 1967). The water was open at the time and 

a storm tide estimated to be about 12 feet developed. The entire Barrow spit was 

under water and more sediment was moved ‘in a few hours than would normally 

be transported in 10 years’ (Hume and Schalk, 1967). Just how much of the bluff 

retreated as a result of that storm is unknown, although it may well have been as 

much as one polygon width, according to Max Brewer, who was Director of the 

Naval Arctic Research Laboratory at the time (Walker, 1985). The debris line investigated by Hume and Schalk (1967) clearly demonstrates that during the 1963 

storm, the sea overtopped the spit to inundate both the fresh-water and sewage lagoons. 

‘‘Prior to 1963, a fall storm in 1954 (Schalk, 1957) was the worst ever, in which 

a surge elevation of 9 to 10 feet is reported to have occurred. A storm accompanying 

a storm surge of 4 to 6 feet occurred in September 1986, causing considerable damage to the bluffs at Barrow and Wainwright (Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team, 

1986).’’

This historical information is important to the people of the North Slope because 

it shows just how severe storm and coastal erosion damage has been and can be. 

If the events of the 1986 storm resulted in a disaster declaration for all of the coastal communities within the borough, it is not hard to image what would result with 

a re-occurrence of either the 1954 or 1963 storm events. 

Over the past 30 years, the Anchorage engineering firm of LCMF, LLC has participated in a number of erosion and mitigation studies for the North Slope Borough. 

The following excerpt from one of their reports provides detail on the extent and 

nature of storm-related erosion in the Arctic:

‘‘The rate of [beach] erosion at Barrow has been estimated by various studies as 

anywhere from 0.2 feet to 6 feet per year. After evaluating the results of several 

studies on the local erosion rate, the Tekmariner report (1987) settled on a rate of 

4 feet per year. 

‘‘Storms are the critical factor in both bluff erosion and retreat of the shoreline. 

Along the coast, undercutting is caused by the action of waves, mainly during storm 

surges. According to MacCarthy (1953), the undercutting is followed by slumping 

and landsliding down the face of the bluff. When ice wedges surrounding tundra 

polygons are present within the solids of a bluff, the fracturing of the wedges causes 

large parts of the polygons to fall from the bluff as a unit. Ice and water within 

the permafrost melt and wet the soil, acting to loosen the slumping materials when 

thawed, so that they are quickly mixed into the sea and beach.’’ (LCMF—May 1991, 

page 4)

The 1986 storm submerged Kaktovik’s airport runway on Barter Island in the 

eastern reaches of the North Slope Borough. The runway continues to flood on an 

annual basis, as outlined in the recent GAO report, Flooding and Erosion in Alaska 

Native Villages. While the community is buffered from coastal erosion by the runway, the permafrost bluffs adjacent to the lagoon and community do not escape erosion problems. In the early 1980s, a seawall had to be built in conjunction with 

roadways along the lagoon to prevent continued erosion from encroaching into the 

right-of-way and causing the new roadway to fail. 

Another effect of erosion occurred at the DEW line (Distant Early Warning) station at Barter Island, which is no longer in operation. As part of its decommissioning, the DEW line landfill was closed by encapsulation (covered with dirt). Unfortunately this landfill is adjacent to the coast, and by the year 2000, erosion had 

caused the encapsulation to fail. 
102

Erosion is a constant enemy across the North Slope. Materials for use in mitigation measures are scarce and very expensive. Consequently, most responses in the 

past have been sporadic and have met with limited success. However, two villages 

have been completely relocated due to erosion. Point Hope was moved in the early 

1970s, but significant loss of cultural artifacts has continued in the area of the old 

townsite. Point Hope is notable as the oldest continually inhabited settlement in 

North America. In its current location, access to higher ground is severely limited. 

There is one roadway leading from Point Hope towards higher ground, but a portion 

of it descends to the northerly edge of the spit along Marrayatt Inlet where it is 

also submerged and dangerous during flooding. The village’s runway continues to 

flood in the fall every year, as mentioned in the GAO report cited above. 

The community of Point Lay was relocated from the coastal barrier islands to land 

at the mouth of the Kokolik River in the late 1970s. However, this move was not 

sufficient to escape flooding in the area. Five years later, the community was moved 

again to its current location on high ground behind the barrier islands. Even so, 

coastal erosion continues to impact access to the community by sea lifts, and community infrastructure—such as the sewage discharge line—is losing stability at its 

discharge point due to erosion in that area. 

Conclusion 

Low elevations, permafrost and the loss of protection from shrinking sea ice expanses makes erosion a constant challenge and an occasional disaster for the people 

of the North Slope. The range of mitigation responses is limited and expensive, but 

our Inupiat whaling culture is inextricably bound to the sea and our communities 

are destined to remain near the water’s edge. Our best hope is for a coordinated 

effort among agencies at all levels, using the best engineering experience and technology, and based on careful planning and respect for the needs of local communities. We appreciate your concern and we look forward to federal participation in 

this urgent problem.

Chairman STEVENS. Ms. Bullard. 

STATEMENT OF LORETTA BULLARD, PRESIDENT, KAWERAK, INC. 

Ms. BULLARD. Thank you. Good morning, Senators. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify and welcome to Alaska. My name is 

Loretta Bullard and I’m the president of Kawerak, which is a Native nonprofit corporation and consortium of 20 federally-recognized 

tribes in Northwest Alaska. We contract with the Federal and 

State governments to provide diverse services throughout the Bering Straits Region. 

I want to state that Kawerak is one of the few organizations in 

the Nation that has contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) roads program and using some of our BIA roads money we 

have been able to provide assistance to Shishmaref, which is one 

of our northern communities that has severe erosion problems. We 

are able to use our BIA roads program dollars to match our Federal 

money. So while we didn’t use it on a match basis for the situation 

in Shishmaref, we did have some discussions with the Corps early 

on to possibly use our BIA roads dollars to provide that match. 

This is in response to the question by Senator Murkowski earlier 

about the Corps. We had discussions with the Corps about using 

our roads dollars to match their dollars to go through the planning 

and feasibility process so Shishmaref will be able to have protections in place in their community. We subsequently decided not to 

because we spent all of our matching dollars to go through the 

planning and feasibility process. There are photos in this display 

here showing that we had taken our BIA dollars and constructed 

a 450-foot seawall protection for the town. 

We concluded that Shishmaref didn’t have the time to go through 

a 3 or 5, 6-year feasibility process only to find that they had a 50 

percent match which they couldn’t afford versus if we took our lim-
103

ited money we were able to construct a seawall to help protect that 

community. So that’s what we did. 

We have had discussions with the Corps of Engineers that they 

have been redirected to look at their cost-benefit analysis that they 

did a number of years ago. They did a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether Diomede could have a docking facility. From the 

initial analysis the conclusion was the benefit was not there, therefore, they could not have their needs addressed. We also included 

photos of Diomede to show their access problems. 

While they’re not extremely subject to erosion, they do get major 

storms out there and do have flooding. They’re not able to access 

assistance through the Corps of Engineers because of the cost-benefit analysis. Diomede is a small community, 150, 160 people, 45 

percent children. They simply don’t have the match available to 

construct a small harbor facility. Because they don’t have a docking 

facility out there, the only thing they have is a fuel barge. 

Major freight just doesn’t get out there unless you put it on a 

plane which lands on the sea ice which is there from January 

through maybe mid-May. There was a time people freighted their 

items on very small boats, 20, 25-foot boats max. The size is limited. But they’re another example of a community that is not able 

to meet the Corps’ match requirement, and the Corps has been 

talking with them about using the BIA roads dollars. Kawarek is 

contracting for the entire region and to match to the Corps’ dollars, 

which, you know, we could explore doing that, but I would hate to 

get in the position of having extremely limited roads dollars that 

everyone is hoping to match State funds to get projects in other villages. 

We were able to do the project in Shishmaref, but I would hate 

to see us spend every single dollar to match the Corps’ dollars. We 

concur with many of the recommendations in the report. I just 

want to suggest that when you do—we encourage that a work 

group be appointed. When Secretary Thompson went to 

Shishmaref, the first thing he said was, who’s in charge? There was 

nobody in charge in terms of a Federal agency. 

I kind of think the position the rural villages are faced with is 

a huge bureaucracy. To do the applications, manage the money, 

folks really need help, and many of our smaller communities don’t 

have that ability to manage the large engineering projects. Just coordinating people, I think, is a huge amount of work. 

We also suggest that, you know, the Corps be the lead and that 

a work group be established of Federal and State agencies and 

rural Alaskans be appointed to serve on that. It also helps to educate those of us in rural Alaska that have to work these systems 

in order to gain assistance. So I would encourage that to be done. 

In closing, we encourage funds to be made available, appropriated on a basis to help us address these issues. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much, Loretta. I have read 

your statement and we do thank you for the recommendations 

you’ve made and we’ll try to follow up. I will have some conversation later. 

[The statement follows:]
104

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LORETTA BULLARD

Thank you Senator Stevens and members of the committee for the opportunity to 

testify today. My name is Loretta Bullard. I am President of Kawerak, Inc. Kawerak 

is a regional Native non-profit corporation and consortium of 20 federally recognized 

tribes in northwest Alaska. We contract with the federal and state governments to 

provide diverse services throughout the Bering Straits region. 

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to present our needs and recommendations. We are pleased that Congress is exploring erosion and flooding concerns in 

Alaska. 

To start, I would like to thank Senator Stevens and this Committee for directing 

the GAO to compile their recent report on erosion and flooding issues in village 

Alaska. The GAO report explored in detail the needs of several of our communities 

(Shishmaref and Unalakleet) and did a good job in laying out the issues. I find myself supporting just about every single recommendation in the report. Alaska has 

over 6,600 miles of coast line. I’ve attached a map to my testimony that reflects the 

sheer size of the State of Alaska in relation to the lower 48. While our population 

is small and our communities remote, just about every single village in the state 

is located on the ocean or along a major river where erosion and flooding problems 

are more likely to occur. 

Kawerak is one of the few tribal organizations nationally—and the only tribal consortium—which has contracted to perform the entire Bureau of Indian Affairs ‘‘Indian Reservation Roads’’ (IRR) program under the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act. IRR funding, when it is available, is an ideal funding 

source for village Alaska because under federal law, it can be used for a local match 

to leverage other funding sources, including federal funds. Over the past year and 

a half, the Corps of Engineers has explored meeting some of our villages need for 

assistance, with the idea that Kawerak would provide the local match. 

Because we are compacting to provide the IRR program in the Bering Straits Region, we were able to make resources available to Shishmaref to construct a small 

sea wall to protect a portion of their roads and community infrastructure until such 

time as they relocate—and to fund a position at Shishmaref to serve as staff support 

to the Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition to aid them in their relocation 

planning. 

I know what we’ve been able to do to assist our villages utilizing our BIA IRR 

resources—but question what federal agency is taking the lead in providing assistance to other villages in desperate need of assistance? Based on our experience, I’d 

have to conclude there is no one agency in the lead. Secretary Thompson cut to the 

chase last summer during his trip to Shishmaref when he inquired which federal 

agency was in charge of helping Shishmaref?—and there was not a definitive response. The villages are basically placed in the position of trying to identify and set 

in place a patchwork of assistance. In my mind—it’s probably akin to herding cats 

and not a very effective way of getting things done. 

We concur with the recommendation contained in the GAO report that a federal 

agency should be appointed to lead a work group consisting of the various federal 

and state agencies to work on erosion and flooding issues in rural Alaska. 

We recommend that the responsibility be delegated to a work group led by the 

Corps of Engineers, rather then the Denali Commission. It could perhaps be a work 

group within the Denali Commission itself. The Corps has the in-house expertise to 

handle the issues. It would also serve to insure decision making is not driven by 

politics. We recommend that rural Alaskans be appointed to serve on the work 

group so that we are able to channel our issues, concerns, and recommendations and 

have them fully considered in the decision making processes. This process could also 

serve to help educate rural Alaskans as to potential sources of assistance and how 

to access them. 

The Denali Commission’s latest draft of their Investment policy states that the 

Commission will only consider proposals to create new communities if Congress directs the relocation of an existing community. I interpret this language to say the 

Denali Commission does not want to be the lead in this arena. Rather, they have 

elected to defer to Congress to make the decision as to whether a community should 

receive assistance to relocate. If this is going to be the process, a process needs to 

be set in place to allow for this. 

Once the work group is appointed, we recommend that their first order of business be to gather data so that those communities in greatest need of assistance, receive the help they need. 

In reviewing the list of communities identified in the region as being impacted 

by erosion and flooding, I think the list could be substantially reduced. The sheer 

number of villages identified as possibly in need of aid serves to discourage agencies 
105

and appropriators from making resources available to address needs. It’s pretty 

overwhelming. Where does one start? I encourage the task force to solicit regional 

and local involvement in the prioritization of support. If you were to ask, for example, our Kawerak Board of Directors to identify what villages in the region had significant erosion and flooding problems that were in immediate need of assistance, 

the answer would not be the list contained in the report. 

We recommend that the work group be tasked with developing recommendations 

for consideration by Congress and the State of Alaska—to streamline the planning, 

application, award and management of funds and technical assistance to provide coordinated, collaborative, non-duplicative and timely support. 

Federal and State agencies all have different planning, applications, grant accounting, management, match requirements, fiscal and programmatic reporting requirements associated with their assistance. I’m surprised that anything gets done 

in rural Alaska given the complexity of the various statutes, regulations, and applications that small rural communities must successfully navigate and contend with 

in order to access assistance from the federal and state governments. There is a certain population threshold at which municipalities and boroughs can manage and 

inter-act effectively with the federal and state governments on complex engineering 

projects. Many villages in Alaska do not meet those thresholds and require assistance even to know what assistance is available and how to go about accessing it. 

I stress assistance in a timely fashion. I understand the Corp informed Shishmaref 

in 1953 that it would be cheaper for them to relocate than to construct a seawall. 

Well, here we are 51 years later—and they haven’t moved yet! Timeliness is of concern given agencies reluctance to invest resources in communities that may move 

at some remote point in the future. 

In reviewing the Table 4 in the GAO report, the List of Federal Programs That 

Can Address Problems Caused by Flooding and Erosion, I was surprised to see that 

GAO included the BIA Roads Maintenance and Housing Improvement Programs as 

possible sources of funds to address erosion and flooding issues. The Alaska Regional Office budget for the BIA Roads Maintenance program for the entire state 

is $300,000. The entire Alaska Regional Office budget to construct or repair homes 

is only $4.1 million. Our region’s share of those funds for fiscal year 2004, is only 

$350,000. With this funding, we are able to construct 3 homes. 

We encourage the Corp of Engineers to amend their cost/benefit analysis process 

to provide consideration for the protection of and value of subsistence resources 

available at that location. 

Some of our village sites have been continuously occupied for 4,000 to 6,000 years. 

The reason we have occupied these sites is that the sites themselves are very rich 

in natural resources upon which we depend. A good example is Little Diomede. 

The village of Little Diomede is located on a very small, steep island about 40 

miles off the tip of the Seward Peninsula between Alaska and Russia. They have 

a population of about 150 people. Little Diomede is situated there because of the 

proximity to subsistence resources. There are huge migrations of whales and walrus 

through the Bering Straits spring and fall. Residents are able to fish and hunt for 

seals year around and crab are readily available. Hundreds of thousands of seabirds 

nest on the island each spring—eggs and birds are taken for subsistence purposes. 

Edible plants grow on the island and are harvested by villagers. While Diomede is 

a wonderful location to access subsistence foods, it’s extremely difficult to safely 

transport people and goods to and from the community. 

Little Diomede does not have an airport, they have a heliport. The U.S. Postal 

Service contracts with Evergreen to deliver mail and small freight, once a week via 

a helicopter during the ice free months. Mail has priority on the helicopter, passengers are a secondary concern. Individuals trying to get to Diomede can sit in 

Wales for weeks, trying to get home with limited space available on the helicopter, 

weather—and the once a year mechanical inspection of the helicopter. When the sea 

ice freezes thick enough and doesn’t float away with the current, (January-February?) residents of Diomede construct an ice runway on the sea ice. At that point, 

small computer airlines provide daily service until the runway floats away (which 

is usually late April-mid May). Diomede residents travel back and forth to the mainland during the ice free months via small 16–22 foot boats. Diomede does not have 

an erosion or flooding problem—they have what I consider to be an access problem. 

Because Diomede does not have a docking facility and freight barges have had to 

wait for calm weather to offload, barge companies are very reluctant to barge freight 

into Diomede. The only barge that now goes into Diomede on an annual basis is 

the Crowley fuel barge. I understand a private individual in Nome occasionally 

hauls freight to Diomede via a small landing craft. Last summer, Rural Cap chartered a fishing boat to bring housing renovation materials to the island. Other then 

that, Diomede residents either have to airlift freight in during the time they have 
106

an ice runway, fly it in via the helicopter if the item(s) will fit in a helicopter—or 

transport items to the island in their own personal boats. This can have fatal consequences—as happened in 1998 when a heavily laden boat disappeared between 

Wales and Little Diomede. Two boats departed Wales, one boat made it—the other 

didn’t. Six lives were lost. 

Little Diomede could benefit tremendously from a docking facility, but under earlier analysis by the Corps, they did not qualify under the cost benefit analysis. Even 

if they had, given that Diomede has a population of 150—of which 46 percent are 

children and a subsistence-based economy, they would not be able to meet the Corps 

match requirements. Unfortunately, our small city governments have little tax base 

and do not receive municipal assistance from the State of Alaska. Our tribal governments do not have taxing authority. Capital improvements are dependent on outside 

funding. I understand, thanks to direction by Senator Stevens’ office, that the Corps 

is re-evaluating the situation and that language has been incorporated into H.R. 

2557 that would address this specific situation. I encourage members of Congress 

to support this provision. 

I bring Diomede up because this to me is a situation where exceptions should be 

made. The Corps funding process needs to provide assistance in those situations 

where no other options are available. If Diomede had a docking facility, they could 

bring in freight and passengers at a substantially reduced cost during the ice free 

months. 

We encourage the Corp of Engineers to set up a process whereby communities can 

request that the match requirement be waived; to waive the local match requirement when the local government(s) are unable to contribute; and provide for an appeal mechanism so that the decision can be fully considered. 

And in closing, we encourage Congress to make funds available so that these very 

real needs can be addressed on a phased basis. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Chairman STEVENS. Myron, good morning. Myron Naneng is 

president of the Association of Village Council Presidents. We’re 

glad to have your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MYRON P. NANENG, SR., PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF 

VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS 

Mr. NANENG. Good morning, Senator, and good morning to the 

distinguished guests who are here to talk about the flooding and 

erosion problems within our State. Thanks for coming and hello. If 

you were in a group, it would probably translate, what’s up? 

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify 

before you on some of the problems in the Yukon/Kuskokwim 

Delta. My name is Myron Naneng. I’m the president of the Association of Village Council Presidents. I have a consortium of 56 villages on the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta. There are many problems 

that are occurring in the villages regarding flooding and erosion. 

On an annual basis during springtime on the river system, the 

Kuskokwim and Yukon, we used to have floods there because of ice 

conditions. Because of the weather changes or climate changes, we 

haven’t had one major flood within the Lower Yukon or 

Kuskokwim since about 1985, but we still do have floods that affect 

our villages. That does not stop the erosion that’s still occurring in 

the villages. 

The village of Newtok is one prime example of a village that 

needs to relocate to another site because of erosion. Other villages 

are also looking at long-term impacts of erosion. In the village of 

Hooper Bay last week they had a meeting regarding the airport. 

They built that airport back in 1968 when I was still running 

around not knowing what’s on the horizon. The runway is now 

starting to get shorter. Every year they’re doing mitigation of the 

runway. They’re starting to discuss potential sites for a new location away from the beach. 
107

Chairman STEVENS. What village? 

Mr. NANENG. The village of Hooper Bay. So the DOT and the 

community got together, and they’ve been in discussions with them 

since January about a potential new site, but they got together to 

get local comments with DOT about a potential site that would be 

away from the coast. They talked about potential mitigation, meaning what can we do to prevent further erosion of the runway. They 

went to a lot of effort to try and prevent that erosion from happening, but it is still occurring. 

Villages on the Yukon, especially those on the Lower Yukon at 

the mouth of the river, are more subject to erosion due to the soil 

conditions. The efforts made by some of the villages like Alakanak, 

Emmonak, Kotlik and Nunam Iqua regarding the erosion of the 

riverbanks. At Emmonak they put some rock piles on the riverbanks to prevent that. That’s working, however, there’s a site 

above the village that’s slowly moving in to what was once the community dump site. So as they deal with what’s in front of the village, they’re also concerned about what’s going on above the village. So that’s one situation that has to be dealt with by the community and outside entities. 

And Kotlik and Nunam Iqua are in the same situation. One of 

the things that has happened with many of the villages on the 

Yukon and Kuskokwim is new construction of homes and infrastructure is being moved away from the riverbank, which has been 

the life-sustaining and subsistence activity, sustenance of our people. So they are moving away from the riverbanks. 

On the Kuskokwim erosion is pretty much evident throughout 

the river system due to the similar soil and river conditions that 

are occurring on the Yukon, just like on the Lower Yukon. I could 

say much about Bethel. You have the representative that will be 

discussing the Bethel issue. It’s really no different that the rest of 

the small villages. The coastal villages on the Bering Sea between 

the mouth of the Yukon from Kotlik to Platinum are really no different as far as this erosion and flooding issue. 

I have stated what Hooper Bay is trying to do in terms of relocating their airport, but the other villages, as many as 10 other villages are affected annually. The flooding occurs mostly during the 

fall time when the weather changes, but flooding causes erosion to 

occur similar to what you have heard of the effects on Shishmaref 

which is up north. So our villages are being impacted by that. 

And one of the recommendations that I have is I think we need 

to go to each of the villages to identify what problems they are having in terms of erosion. What problems with the long-term impact 

with the flooding that occurs annually. Each village will identify 

their own problems and how it affects them, because if we go from 

one village which may be 10 miles away, they say the problem we 

have is different than the next village. 

So, with that, I think one of the things that you’ve heard regarding some of the issues that they have identified, you know, a potential site, but there’s more to do in terms of trying to stop or prevent 

the erosion from occurring. And I think that would require working 

together, being able to relocate to a site that’s more suitable and 

will not affect them for long term. 
108

So we need to involve the villages, those that are going to be directly impacted at the village level, in planning and implementation of how to address some of the issues that they have regarding 

flooding and erosion. You know, if we have a great big plan of 

someone coming in from the outside to say that this is the way the 

erosion is going to be addressed and this led to further damage, 

they may not identify some of the things that the people in the villages have seen and not included in the plans of how to address 

them. 

So I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to write some information regarding the issues that we have with flooding and erosion. I will state that I’m not an engineer, but I think that the people that live in the villages have a better idea of how to address 

some of these concerns and might also be able to address some of 

the identifiable problems they have observed for many years. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MYRON P. NANENG, SR. 

My name is Myron P. Naneng, Sr., President of the Association of Village Council 

Presidents. The Association of Village Council Presidents is a tribal consortium that 

represents 56 villages on the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta in Western Alaska. 

First, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation regarding the problems of the floods and erosion that is effecting our numerous villages on the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta. 

Floods occur on an annual basis and this is primarily caused by snow and ice conditions in the river systems, while on the coast, it is caused by weather. The floods 

occur on the coast during the fall season before winter sets in to freeze the lakes 

and sea on the coast. 

However, erosion is more of a problem that faces many of the villages within the 

region, both on the coast and river systems. The village of Newtok is the prime example of a village within our region that needs to relocate to a new site. The location has been arranged by all stakeholders who have landholdings that would allow 

this now, however, the problem may be how to accomplish it. 

Other villages are now looking at longer term impacts of erosion on their infrastructure. Take for instance, the airport in Hooper Bay. Over the years, the airport 

has gotten shorter due to erosion at one end. Now, it may eventually all be at sea, 

due to the erosion that is occurring along the whole length of the runway. The village corporation, and the local community are having planning meetings with State 

of Alaska, Department of Public Facilities and Transportation to identify a new site 

for the airport that is far removed from the coastal erosion. 

Villages on the Yukon River, especially those near the mouth of the river are 

more subject to erosion than those further upriver. This is more due to the soil and 

tundra that the villages are located on. Villages of Alakanak, Emmonak, Kotlik and 

Nunam Iqua are slowly eroding on the riverbanks. At Emmonak, rocks have been 

placed on the riverbank to slow the erosion down and it is showing some success. 

However, a site above the village is eroding that may cause some concern for the 

village eventually. Alakanak is in a similar situation, with erosion eating away 

some land front along the river. Whatever can be used to slow the erosion has been 

placed on the riverbank. Nunam Iqua and Kotlik face the same problem of eroding 

riverbank. 

On the Kuskokwim River, the villages of Upper/Lower Kalskag’s, Tuluksak, 

Akiak, Akiachak, Kwethluk, Bethel, Napaskiak, Oscarville, Napakiak, Tuntutuliak, 

Eek have erosion problems. Other villages that are in the tributaries are also affected by erosion. Bethel has been addressing the problem with a seawall that extends most of riverfront, and Kwethluk has placed sand bags in areas that are considered problematic. 

Coastal villages are not exempt from the problem as well. Quihagak, Kongiganak, 

Kwillingok are also having erosion issues. However, these villages are affected by 

floods in the fall that are similar to those that affect Shishmaref, but not to as great 

extend as that village. 

A survey of erosion problems should be done with each village. Understanding the 

seasonal impacts, such as the spring floods in the river systems, with ice has an 
109

impact on the riverbanks. Fall flooding and tidal impacts along the coast have more 

of an impact on coastal villages. However, each village has its own identifiable problem, that causes the erosion that is part of the eco-system and villages need to be 

participants in planning and addressing the erosion problem. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present information on the problems of erosion. 

Since I am not an engineer, I will not suggest how to deal with these erosion problems, but would highly recommend that who ever is going to be working on these 

that local input be garnered to the maximum extend possible. Have a great stay 

here in Alaska, and if you have come back for a short time, welcome back and if 

you’re a first time visitor, welcome.

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. If the Senators will 

look at the map that we have provided, the A, B, C, D areas are 

between the Yukon and Kuskokwim, the lower river is the 

Kuskokwim and the upper is the Yukon. It has 56 villages in that 

area. I think this is the area that probably has the worst flooding 

problem as compared to those that are on the shoreline that have 

the erosion problem, primarily from the sea, but the erosion is the 

same on the rivers even though there’s no flooding, right? 

Mr. NANENG. Yes. One thing I would like to add is when you go 

to each and every village, like Russian Mission on the Yukon and 

Kuskokwim, you will see these measuring—what they call the 

measuring tape type things where they show 5 feet, 6 feet, all the 

way down to 4 feet. And it shows what they consider to be the flood 

levels and how high the water gets when it’s threatening villages. 

Chairman STEVENS. There’s a photo right now up there on erosion. Because Senator Murkowski has to leave, let me yield to her 

first. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Stevens. I appreciate 

that courtesy. As you well know, Myron, when I was out in the YK 

Delta last summer, I had an opportunity to look at the erosion in 

some of those river delta communities. We did see the measurements in every community. I don’t think there was a single community that I visited of the 12 or 13 where we didn’t see evidence of 

flooding. The high-level mark unofficially on some building or 

whether going down on the riverbank itself. So it was very apparent, very visible as we know. 

Just listening to the testimony of the four of you, there’s a common theme here. Loretta, you mentioned just the bureaucracy that 

you have to deal with with the Corps and all the hoops and hurdles 

that need to be jumped, but I also heard a request, if you will, for 

an assessment of what we have out there. Representative Joule, I 

noticed in your testimony under your proposal for possible solutions, you suggested adopting of a statewide erosion plan, which includes an assessment of the villages. 

I would ask the panel, whether or not there is an informal assessment, whether with, Myron, in your area, is there a regional 

assessment of the status of erosion, or is there any coordinated effort at this point either at the local or State level that you are 

aware of? I throw that out to all four of you. 

Mr. JOULE. Senator Murkowski, at the State level, as I stated, 

there’s—basically we have to wait for a declaration of some sort. 

We’re aware of areas that will have a problem, but generally because we don’t have State policies in place, we’re kind of hamstrung to do anything until the declaration has been declared of 

some sort. So we’re pretty much in the reaction mode. 
110

I’ll let the other panelists speak more to their own. I will state 

that sometimes opportunities present themselves and with the expertise and testimony that we’ve had and also in some of the work 

that we’re currently doing with the current administration, we can 

take a lot of this information and begin the ground work so it can 

happen on a statewide level. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Anybody else want to add to that? 

Mr. NANENG. Senator Murkowski, there is no coordinated effort 

that I know of to identify the concerns regarding the flooding and 

erosion. Like Representative Joule says, the only time they start—

have a major concern about it is when major flooding or erosion is 

taking away infrastructure in the community. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So there is no preemptive effort; it’s all crisis management. 

Mr. AHMAOGAK. I’ll try to answer your question in terms of 

whether there has been an assessment. At the local level we do our 

own assessment in terms of erosion and mitigation plans that we 

know are the best of our level, but there is poor coordination at this 

time in terms of erosion practices and why, when, what parts of it. 

For our part from the North Slope, it’s done entirely on our own. 

No coordination at the State, no coordination at the Federal level, 

just to answer your question. 

Studies have been conducted at our own level, but nobody at the 

State or Federal agencies coordinate or help us in our effort. 

Ms. BULLARD. Just one comment. If you can move houses fast 

enough so they don’t get damaged, therefore you don’t have a disaster, therefore you don’t get assistance. That’s kind of what folks 

are faced with. You move stuff fast enough, you don’t have a disaster. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mayor, I wanted to follow up on your comments. First of all, as far as the Barrow research facility, I had an 

opportunity to talk with you folks up there about that and all the 

promises that that holds. So I’m looking forward to working with 

you to make that a reality. You mentioned the memorandum of understanding that Barrow has insofar as a mitigation plan, but that 

you’re the only community up there in your area that has a mitigation plan. 

Other than the cost and meeting the 50-percent cost sharing, 

what are the other barriers to working out a mitigation plan that 

the other villages have up on the Slope there? Is it just the cost 

issue, or are there any other factors involved? 

Mr. AHMAOGAK. I don’t think it’s purely on a cost issue alone. I 

think it goes a lot more than that. Qualifications to meet their 

stringent requirements to be able to qualify as a village, to be able 

to partner with the Army Corps of Engineers is really strict and 

difficult to try to achieve and convince them. 

We’ve attempted numerous times to try to enable some of our villages to be at it. We’ve never been able to do so. It’s not just cost. 

Their requirements are placing them as part of the mitigation plan 

and to pay 50 percent, all of those sort of requirements are very 

difficult. We’ve done it only for Barrow. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Why was Barrow able to be more successful 

with it than, say, any of the other villages? 
111

Mr. AHMAOGAK. We took it one step further and allowed for some 

technical research, scientific advice, and those requirements to 

meet a lot of the strict requirements. I can’t per se right now pinpoint what those difficulties are, but we couldn’t convince the 

Corps to accept the other two villages, to be under the Corps of Engineers. 

I think the qualifications in place up there to be included as a 

mitigation plan, their requirements are very strict and difficult at 

best to achieve. We’re willing to work with the villages by all 

means to help them out, but it’s the Corps of Engineers that keeps 

saying no, no, no. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Ms. Bullard, you had mentioned using the 

BIA roads money in an attempt to use this as the match, and I appreciate the dilemma that that puts you in, and a decision as to 

whether or not to utilize all those monies for something like feasibility and then realize you have nothing available to do the preventive maintenance work to be done right now in order to stop it, 

whether it’s putting rocks out on the banks or what have you. 

What else can we do? I’m concerned because the problems that 

we’re talking about here—it’s not as if you’ve got a different situation in different regions of the State. Sounds like it’s pretty much 

uniform across the board. We don’t have the ability to meet the 

match. We’re dealing with a Corps that is certainly well intentioned, but you’ve got a bureaucratic process that is difficult to negotiate at best. 

You have suggested that you think that through this working 

group you can make some headway, but really where do we go? If 

we don’t have the money and we’re dealing with a level of bureaucracy that can’t be penetrated, what do we do? 

Ms. BULLARD. My suggestion is that a process be set in place 

whereby the matching requirement can be waived and that, you 

know, these communities need to be helped and they don’t have the 

money, many of them don’t have the money. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But it sounds like it’s more than just the 

money. As the mayor has indicated, the cost share is a big factor, 

but perhaps not the only factor. How do we get beyond the dollar 

problem that we have, but also in working things out with the 

Corps so we can make some progress? 

Ms. BULLARD. I think that, again, perhaps this work group could 

develop recommendations and consideration by Congress in terms 

of streamlining the process, streamlining the application process, 

the money management process, so that you can put those resources together. For example, right now you’ve got this agency 

doing this little piece maybe, if we can get them to do it, and someone over here doing something entirely different. They all have different qualifications in terms of their sharing funds. 

I’m surprised anything gets done in the bush because it’s all so 

complicated. Trying to drive these processes from a community of 

200, 300, 400 people. It’s very difficult. 

Mr. AHMAOGAK. If I could interject to your question. In light of—

I realize there’s a lot of funding needed here to do a lot of mitigation. We sense that all across Alaska—relocations for the storm 

surges. But I think the villages and the regions outside of rural 

Alaska are in dire need, and like I stated, my suggestion is that 
112

we need help when we declare an emergency. That’s the first and 

foremost thing, that when we need help, we need help. 

That would be a big plus on our part in the event we don’t get 

mitigation funds. We’re still vulnerable to coastal erosions and disaster preparations and all what have you. But science, I believe, is 

one effort that, like what we suggested before with global climate 

change and the reason why we wanted to do it is to get the baseline data on what is really happening out there. 

The first and foremost thing is if science can be had, then perhaps maybe as a tool that we can find out what is the best cost 

benefit that we can do to reduce the cost to do the mitigation plan. 

We don’t have that technical expertise per se. It will certainly help 

us out if we have the best coastal erosion people in the world to 

help us and say, hey, we can help you design something that would 

be cost effective and economical. 

We don’t have any of those resources. I would highly suggest that 

something like this be looked at from our standpoint. It would be 

cheaper for the Federal Government and at the State and local 

level. We don’t have expertise like that at the State; we need that. 

That’s only a small part of what needs to be done before mitigation 

plans. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I regret it, but I am going 

to have to excuse myself. Thank you for bringing this very important hearing and inviting so many qualified speakers. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Burns. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve been just sitting 

here and listening to the conversation and the challenges you have 

in your villages, especially along the Yukon River. It’s been our experience in Montana, these darn rivers go where they want to go, 

and no matter what the conditions are around them, we’re going 

to have times of flooding and times of low water and these kind of 

things. But I was interested in Ms. Bullard’s comments that sometimes when you try to coordinate an area as large as you have to 

deal with here and as many challenges as you have, it’s kind of like 

herding calves on horseback. 

You would operate really well in Washington, DC, which I still 

maintain is 17 square miles of logic-free environment. Whenever 

you’ve got to coordinate, especially between bureaucracies; you’ve 

got the BIA, you’ve got the Department of the Interior, you’ve got 

the Corps of Engineers, and then you’ve got your State people who 

have specific ideas on how we’re either going to try to control erosion here or relocate or whatever for what’s happening. 

I happen to believe that we’ve got a situation that is both environmental and cyclical at the same time. Those are very serious 

challenges. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee sitting 

over here on the right has made a comment that sometimes these 

agencies are bound by law on what they can do, so we’re going to 

have to do something in Congress to change some of the ways we 

react to your part of the world and Mr. Naneng’s part of the world 

because there’s different circumstances. 

Then Mr. Joule has got to coordinate the whole thing. So it’s very 

interesting, very interesting dialog here, and I don’t have a specific 

question. These hearings are very, very good for me because it’s 
113

hard for us to fathom the challenges you have coming from the 

Lower 48. Because you have—it’s a different world. I realize that. 

I’ve been here many times. I’ve always understood it. We’ll have to 

deal with it. 

Sometimes Congress only deals with disasters and catastrophes. 

That’s what changes quicker and sometimes in the wrong direction 

than any other time. We react to different losses at different times. 

Thank you for your testimony this morning. I appreciate that very 

much. Thanks for being candid with us. You’ve been very candid 

and very realistic about the challenges that you have. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Sununu. 

Senator SUNUNU. Are there any examples of emergency response 

or mitigation in the villages with which you work that have been 

successful? Where the emergency response was well coordinated, 

organization was effective, or specific mitigation projects that have 

been built or constructed either with a State, Federal or local initiative that’s been successful that we should look at as a model of 

what might be achieved? Mr. Mayor. 

Mr. AHMAOGAK. Thank you. Good question. We do have—we 

wrote up our own emergency disaster standard operating procedures at the local level including the input of all the villages, so 

it’s well coordinated just for our region, that we have laid out numerous procedures that are there in case we have to declare a disaster and all resources are certainly there at the local level. But 

then outside of that, we have nothing. 

And I think the State and local agencies need to work closely 

with these localities that have written these plans and to fit in and 

coordinate much more so and not have even copies of them if they 

can. We do have some small minor grant funds that we have to 

apply for that are highly competitive in writing these things. It’s 

really a competitive grant, and that’s the process we had to go 

through to write our own disaster coordination plan and standard 

operating procedures. 

I think it should be suggested that this be much more freely resources available so that all the regions and all the villages not 

compete for this. It doesn’t make any sense. Make funds available 

to write their plans. At the local level, once they have their plans 

at the State and Federal levels, disaster plans, in terms of mitigation that you should use as a model, that’s a very difficult question. 

Financial resources are very limited. You’ve heard it all across here 

that we don’t have the resources with the budget cuts and the 

economy going down, I mean, that’s very difficult. 

We would like to have the resources and make a lot of suggestions at the local level and to the State agencies and Federal agencies and try to set that model, but it’s not all coming together well. 

We’re entirely on our own, so to speak, out there when we have situations like that. But we’re willing to attempt to do that from the 

North Slope, to build a model that’s something that can really 

work. That’s how I would answer your question. 

In terms of mitigation, Army Corps is just one example where attempts to see how that’s going to play out with planning and design and matching capital grants and the engineering that’s going 

to happen and the resources that’s going to be made available, like 

gravel to do the mitigation. I’m trying to see if that’s going to be 
114

a worthwhile model. It takes, I think ironically, a 6-year period 

working with Army Corps of Engineers from the planning stages 

to engineering to construction. By that time, you have 6 years of 

storms. So I can’t answer that question. This is the first model we 

have attempted at the local level. 

Senator SUNUNU. That’s in Barrow? 

Mr. AHMAOGAK. That’s in Barrow, that’s right. 

Senator SUNUNU. Mr. Naneng. 

Mr. NANENG. It takes a Governor or someone higher up to declare a disaster before anything happens, before a disaster is responded to. For instance, out in Bethel, Governor Knowles’ declaration of disaster took time to get money from Congress to address 

the seawall, the erosion of the seawall. That applies in the same 

way to each and every one of the villages. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

Senator BURNS. Could I ask the mayor a question? The storms 

that you have alluded to, were they summer storms? 

Mr. AHMAOGAK. Pardon me? 

Senator BURNS. The storms you’ve alluded to in the testimony 

you had, were these storms in the summer or winter? 

Mr. AHMAOGAK. These storms are happening mostly in the fall 

time, like October. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, I hope you are all familiar with the 

study that the GAO made. We would like the GAO to review this. 

They’ve made some great suggestions, but there are some alternatives there. I would appreciate if you would give us your opinion 

concerning their suggestions. I do think, George, your concept of 

these baseline studies is really, really sound. We must do that. We 

must know what we’re working against. 

The testimony we heard yesterday about the cyclones, the winter 

cyclones is rather startling. And if that’s a true prediction, we’re 

going to start getting more winter storms. That will be difficult to 

handle in your part of the State. There’s no question about that. 

I would urge you to take a look at this. We’ve got extra copies back 

there. Give us ideas as to what options they suggest you feel are 

best. They have made their suggestions based upon past reactions 

in other parts of the country. 

I do think that Lisa’s suggestion yesterday that we try to set up 

an authority to deal with the erosion/flooding control made some 

sense. Whether that should be a State authority or a Federal authority or something like a Federal/State authority needs to be examined. Again, we would like to have your suggestions on that too. 

We do thank you very much for coming and for your participation 

in this hearing. 

It is something we have to pay some attention to because every 

indication is, unfortunately, things are going to get worse in terms 

of this area of flooding and erosion. 

We will now take a 10-minute recess while we get ready for the 

next series of witnesses. Our next panel is Mayor Hugh Short, Ms. 

Vorderstrasse, Mr. Ivanoff and Mr. Rock. 

Thank you for coming very much. Good morning. Glad to see you. 

Call on the mayor of Bethel, Mr. Hugh Short, first. Let me again 

ask you to keep your statements to 8 minutes or less. Two other 

panels are left this morning. Mr. Short. 
115

STATEMENT OF HUGH SHORT, MAYOR, BETHEL, ALASKA 

Mr. SHORT. Thank you, Senator Stevens, Senator Burns and Senator Sununu. It’s a real honor to be sitting here to provide my testimony to you. 

First off, I would like to welcome you to Alaska and tell you a 

little bit about Bethel. The city of Bethel is located on the north 

shore of the largest oxbow along the Kuskokwim River. The lower 

Kuskokwim River is an active meandering river that travels 

through low-lying tundra regions to the Bering Sea. In a region 

without interconnecting roads, this river provides the principal 

transportation corridor for most heavy commodities including fuel. 

Because of the river’s active meander and low-lying terrain, it is 

susceptible to both active erosion and flooding. The Kuskokwim 

River is the key to economic self-sufficiency in our region, and 

Bethel serves as the host that can promote economic self-determination. 

There’s about 6,000 residents in the city of Bethel. We serve as 

the regional hub for about 25,000 residents in the YK Delta. If you 

look in the GAO report, there’s 56 communities; 49 of the 56 communities in our region are on that list of communities that are affected by flooding and erosion, so this issue is very close to the 

heart of many people in the region. 

The location and growth of the city of Bethel is attributable to 

its being the farthest upriver location that can accommodate large 

ocean-going vessels. This governed the location of the U.S. Army 

Air Corps airbase developed during World War II. The port and the 

airbase would provide the necessary beginning infrastructure for 

many other large Federal Government in the 1950s, such as the 

White Alice communications facility, the regional IHS hospital and 

a large Air Force facility that was later converted to the regional 

BIA headquarters. 

The community has always been challenged with active river erosion. In earlier periods, the 1960s through the 1970s, the community itself attempted to contain this erosion. I was born and raised 

in Bethel. I was born in 1973. My father is in the taxi cab business, 

and one of the first attempts growing up in the 1970s in Bethel 

was when a car was broken down, they would take it down to the 

bank and sit it on the beach there. I have pictures of hundreds of 

cars sitting on the beach of Bethel as an attempt of the community 

to try and deal with the erosion. In fact, there are postcards still 

floating around with that picture. 

However, it was soon learned that the resources needed to effectively manage this were far beyond the means of the community. 

As a result, vast amounts of river frontage real estate were lost to 

erosion. In 1968 Congress, by resolution, directed the Corps of Engineers to investigate this erosion problem. Unfortunately, Bethel 

found itself in a similar status as many of the smaller communities 

now being mentioned in the GAO December 2003 report—the cost 

of an effective erosion control project far exceeded the required 

cost/benefit ratio. 

It would be another decade, 1978, before Congress again directed 

the Corps, through a continuing resolution of its original 1968 resolution, to again investigate the erosion problem. Tragically, 

throughout the previous decade, a significant amount of irreplace-
116

able land was lost. However, because significant large infrastructures were now being threatened, including the bulk fuel facility 

and the IHS hospital, the Corps determined that an effective erosion containment project would have a positive cost/benefit ratio. 

As a result of this, in the 1980s and 1990s, through both State 

and Federal funding, the 8,000 linear feet of erosion protection was 

put into place. Since this construction, no further uplands have 

been lost. Just a side note that’s not included in here, the city of 

Bethel currently spends approximately $300,000 per year in maintenance of that seawall and erosion protection. 

As mentioned in the report, the city again is engaged through 

the Corps in rehabbing, extending and improving another 1,200 

feet of this wall system. 

We certainly support the recommendations being offered in the 

December 2003 GAO report. Particularly, the recommendation that 

social and environmental factors be considered in cost/benefit analysis and the cost/benefit requirement relief proposed in H.R. 2557. 

If such had been available to the city during the 1960s and 1970s, 

literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of valuable land could 

have been saved, as well as homes. 

Additionally, we support the recommendation that the Denali 

Commission serve as the clearinghouse for future erosion and flooding support. The Denali Commission has set the bar for coordination and intervention of major projects in rural Alaska. 

In conclusion, it is also important to mention that a significant 

portion of the city’s downtown is situated in a FEMA-determined 

special hazard flood area. The city has been in the National Flood 

Insurance Program since 1974. It historically maintains a rigorous 

management posture when it comes to development within this 

special flood hazard area. We believe the community’s flood claim 

history over the past decades bears this out. 

A side note, Bethel has the resources, Bethel has the infrastructure and the population to support a relationship with the Corps 

of Engineers. We have the capabilities, we have staff within the 

city to do that. Unfortunately, many of the communities that Mr. 

Naneng spoke about earlier do not have those resources. 

The best example that I can see of a successful Denali Commission intervention probably has been health clinic construction in 

the State of Alaska. If you look at the amount of clinics constructed 

in the last 5 years through the Denali Commission and the coordination that the Denali Commission has provided, it has allowed 

smaller communities to be able to access that kind of scale. There’s 

resources there, there’s the staff at the Denali Commission, 

ANTHC is available. 

Thinking about Senator Murkowski’s comments earlier, I believe 

that if an approach was taken with the erosion and flooding to 

allow the Denali Commission or another organization to be the 

clearinghouse to be able to provide that technical assistance to 

small villages and someone was on the other end of the line to answer that phone and help them, I believe that will go a long way, 

along with relationships with regional organizations. 

If you look at the most successful areas, regional organizations 

provide that infrastructure to be able to get the information and 

type of assistance out there. 
117

So, I thank you. I hope I haven’t gone over the 8 minutes. I’d be 

willing to answer any questions later on. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Short. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HUGH SHORT

Dear Senator Stevens and members of the Committee on Appropriations, thank 

you for providing the City of Bethel and other rural communities affected by flooding and erosion the opportunity to testify about this extremely important issue. 

The City of Bethel is located on the north shore of the largest oxbow along the 

Kuskokwim River. The lower Kuskokwim River is an active meandering river that 

travels through low lying tundra regions to the Bering Sea. In a region without 

interconnecting roads this river provides the principal transportation corridor for 

most heavy commodities including fuel. Because of the rivers active meander and 

low lying terrain it is susceptible to both active erosion and flooding. The 

Kuskokwim River is the key to economic self-sufficiency in our region, and Bethel 

serves as the host that can promote economic self-determination. 

The location and growth of the City of Bethel is attributable to its being the farthest upriver location that can accommodate large ocean going vessels. This governed the location of the U.S. Army Air Corps airbase developed during WW II. The 

port and the airbase would provide the necessary beginning infrastructure for many 

other large federal government projects in the 1950’s such as the White Alice communications facility (part of NORAD), the regional IHS hospital and a large Air 

Force facility that was later converted to the regional BIA headquarters. 

The community has always been challenged with active river erosion. In earlier 

periods (1960’s through the 1970’s) the community itself attempted to contain this 

erosion. However, it was soon learned that the resources needed to effectively manage this were far beyond the means of the community. As a result vast amounts 

of river frontage real estate were lost to erosion. In 1968 Congress, by resolution, 

directed the Corps of Engineers to investigate this erosion problem. Unfortunately 

Bethel found itself in a similar status as many of the smaller communities now 

being mentioned in the GAO December 2003 Alaska Native Villages report—the 

cost of an effective erosion control project far exceeded the required cost/benefit 

ratio. 

It would be another decade (1978) before Congress again directed the Corps, 

through a continuing resolution of its original 1968 resolution, to again investigate 

the erosion problem. Tragically, throughout that previous decade, significant 

amounts of irreplaceable land was lost. However, because significant large infrastructures were now being threatened (bulk fuel facility and the IHS hospital compound) the Corps determined that an effective erosion containment project would 

have a positive cost/benefit ratio. 

As a result of this in the 1980’s and 1990’s, through both state and federal funding, the 8,000 linear feet of erosion protection now in place was erected. Since this 

construction no further uplands have been lost to erosion. 

As mentioned in the December 2003 GAO report, the city is again engaged 

through the Corps in rehabbing, extending and improving another 1,200 feet of this 

wall system. 

We certainly support the recommendations being offered in the December 2003 

GAO report. Particularly the recommendation that social and environmental factors 

be considered in cost/benefit analysis, and the cost/benefit requirement relief proposed in H.R. 2557. If such had been available to our city during the 1960’s and 

1970’s, literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of now irretrievable land could 

have been saved. 

Additionally, we support the recommendation that the Denali Commission serve 

as the clearinghouse for future erosion and flooding support. The Denali Commission has set the bar for coordination and intervention of major projects in rural 

Alaska. 

In conclusion it is also important to mention that a significant portion of the city’s 

downtown is situated in a FEMA determined Special Hazard flood area. The city 

has been in the national flood insurance program since 1974. It historically maintains a rigorous management posture when it comes to development within this special flood hazard area. We believe the communities flood claim history over the past 

decades bears this out. 

Thank you again for your interest in erosion and flooding in Alaska Native villages. Please let me know if you have further questions.
118

Chairman STEVENS. Ms. Vorderstrasse. 

STATEMENT OF EDITH A. VORDERSTRASSE, MAYOR, BARROW, ALASKA 

Ms. VORDERSTRASSE. Good morning, Senator. Mr. Chair and 

members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on behalf of our community, Barrow. 

I was born and raised in Barrow. I have seen many changes to 

our coastline. As a child, I got to enjoy the vast coastline we once 

had. The coastline was once our playground, a place for celebration 

of our communities. For those of you who may not understand 

what nalukataq is, it’s when we have a successful spring whale 

hunt and the crews select their day of celebration, a gathering 

place of our successful hunters where they butchered their harvest. 

We in Barrow have always lived near the sea because we depended on the sea for our livelihood. Particularly, when we lived 

in sand houses and had little in the way of infrastructure. However, in the last hundred years we have put down roots that did 

not foresee the erosion of our coastline. We have millions of dollars 

in infrastructure in harm’s way. As the ice on the Arctic Ocean 

grows more fragile, so does our coastline. 

We are experiencing more frequent storms as early as July, and 

the ice is nowhere to be seen for at least 150 to 200 miles. We are 

at a crossroads. Is it practical to stand and fight our mother ocean, 

or do we surrender and move? Do we sacrifice our beautiful beaches to concrete and barriers to our livelihood or do we pull back? 

One way or the other we have to make an attempt to salvage or 

plan new facilities to take the places of the ones that currently 

exist. We are very fortunate that the North Slope Borough was established in 1972 where the Borough took most of the municipality’s powers so that they can provide for our community, and we 

work very closely with Mayor Ahmaogak. Mayor Ahmaogak provided you wonderful information today with the history of the 

storms and erosion, the riverbanks and their erosion. It’s not just 

our beach, but it’s also the rivers where our ancestors went out 

hunting. 

My parents have had to move their hunting cabins several times 

away from the rivers. Sitting here listening to all the different panels from yesterday and today, we have come to an understanding 

of how we all need to work together. And I want to thank you for 

recognizing the bureaucratic dilemma that we are in when we have 

a storm in trying to address the needs and trying to declare a disaster. 

I think as we all sit here listening to all the testimony, questioning the scientists talking about the weather changes, it has 

brought us to a closer relationship to where we as community leaders, as our legislature—and how we all need appropriations from 

you, from the United States, in order to address these needs that 

we have in our communities. I just would like to thank the Senate 

Appropriations Committee for coming to Alaska to listen to our 

concerns, and hopefully that there will be enough money appropriated in order to address some of these. 

Some of our communities have a much greater serious need, and 

I just would like to thank all of you for coming here and listening 

to our concerns. Thank you. 
119

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDITH A. VORDERSTRASSE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify on behalf of my community Barrow. 

Born and raised in Barrow, Alaska, I have seen many changes to our coastline. 

As a child I got to enjoy our vast coastline we once had. The coastline was our playground, a place where celebrations of the community take place such a Nalukataq 

(summer celebration of the successful whaling captains and their crews after the 

spring hunt), and gathering place of our successful hunters where they butchered 

their harvest. 

We in Barrow have always lived near the sea because we depend on the sea for 

our livelihood. This was practical when we lived in sod houses and had little in the 

way of infrastructure however in the last hundred years we have put down roots 

that didn’t foresee the erosion of our coastline. We have millions of dollars in structures and infrastructure in harms way. As the calming hand of ice on the Arctic 

Ocean grows more fragile so does our coastline. We are experiencing more frequent 

storms as earlier as July and the calming hand of the ice in nowhere to be seen 

for it is at less 150 to 200 miles away. We are at a crossroads. Is it practical to 

stand and fight our mother ocean? Or do we surrender and move. Do we sacrifice 

our beautiful beaches to concrete and barriers to our lifeblood or do we pull back? 

One way or another we have to make an attempt to salvage or plan new facilities 

to take the place of the ones that currently exist. 

We as a community will need to make some difficult decisions in the very near 

future to address the above and we don’t have the financial means to address it. 

Sitting here listening to all the different panels from yesterday and today, we all 

have come to an understanding that we need to work together in order for us to 

accomplish the task that is before us. Organizations must be willing to restructure 

the application process so that communities will be able to qualify for the assistance 

that they need. Thank you for recognizing the bureaucratic dilemma we endure 

when our communities are in distress and need the assistance of the agencies during a storm or after the assessment of the storm.

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Ivanoff. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE IVANOFF, PRESIDENT, UNALAKLEET NATIVE 

CORPORATION 

Mr. IVANOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back home. To 

Senator Burns and Senator Sununu, welcome to our State. We 

hope this is a very pleasant experience for you in the hope that you 

will make it back again. 

I’ll be speaking to you today as President of the Unalakleet Native Corporation and thank you for this opportunity. Unfortunately, 

our village is very experienced on both flooding and erosion issues. 

Unalakleet is roughly 400 miles west of Anchorage. The site location was chosen for its access, quick and easy access to the subsistence resources in that area. This settlement has been in existence 

for over 2,000 years, as confirmed by an archaeologist. Historically, 

we have been host to several Federal agencies. We had an Air 

Force Base located 5 miles northeast of the village. We had White 

Alice communication site stationed 10 miles to the east, and we 

had an FAA site in the past. 

These facilities have all closed down with the end of the cold war 

and modern technology. As a child, I was experienced with the 

floods of 1964 and 1974. We spent several days at the Air Force 

Base waiting out the storms with the other children, women, and 

others from our village while the men basically stayed back and 

watched the storms consume our community. 

For 29 years we were fortunate to not have floods of this magnitude. However, we did see the normal fall storms that consumed 
120

some structures and in my lifetime I have seen several buildings 

moved. Our community was successful in having a declaration of 

disaster from last year’s fall storm. Unfortunately, we have yet to 

see these funds allocated, and meanwhile we continue to see with 

the storms that have been coming our structures and gabion wall 

erode slowly. 

My comments are not intended to be critical of the National Resources Conservation Service or any agency involved in assisting 

us. We appreciate any and all of the services they have provided. 

I mention the NRCS because they have been the most receptive 

agency to be here in our needs. They have been good to work with 

and their interpretation is rural friendly, we feel, and we appreciate their work. 

But in the month of November is when we have the storms in 

our area, as you saw yesterday the cyclones develop in the Arctic 

Ocean. Growing up we didn’t see that. All of our storms historically 

came from the Bering Sea, but with the ice moving it’s a new scenario. 

In the late 1970s, after the flood of 1974, the State DOT built 

a road along the west side of the village, creating an access road 

between the airport and the business section of town, but more importantly a barrier between the community and the ocean. This has 

held safely for our structures for 29 years. 

Erosion, the greatest erosion occurs at the mouth of the river. 

Additionally, erosion occurs along the beach. Erosion takes place 

somewhat in the springtime, but primarily with the fall storms. In 

2000 the NRCS built us a retaining wall in our village beginning 

at the mouth of the river and stretching along the beach. It was 

a $1 million project. Without this wall we would have seen some 

structures in our communities, I believe, fall into the ocean. The retaining wall is good, but has room for improvement. 

We were not allowed to improve on the contour of the land, but 

basically to be a pro-active measure, but with the guidelines we 

have to follow the contour of the land. The Native Village of Unalakleet working with this program built this, recognizing that the 

wall was too low in some areas, and we believe that the wall basically saved some of the buildings from structural damage. The 

above are considerations for future improvements. 

They were left out of the original project due to funding constraints. We feel the life of this project has been diminished due 

to stringent funding guidelines. We are in desperate need of immediate protection from flooding and erosion. As you’ve heard before, 

we don’t qualify for the projects under the Corps’ interpretation of 

the guidelines. The State of Alaska has provided local match for 

studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the amount of over 

$50 million and has yet to see a construction project of significance 

from this study. 

Our village has been, and currently is active, in trying to make 

changes to these policies. However, we are frustrated with the hurdles that we face. Until there are changes in Federal policies or an 

exemption is made for underdeveloped States such as Alaska, we 

will remain vulnerable. While most of the revenue generated in 

Alaska is extracted from the rural areas, we still struggle for simple things such as safety. In rural Alaska subsistence is the biggest 
121

driving force of existence and has not been accounted for in the 

benefit side of the policies. However, I understand that it is now 

being considered. 

We have seen some successes with the construction of the roads 

and the gabion wall, but we need to eliminate the hardships that 

come with each disaster. Unfortunately, there are funds available 

for reactive measures, but little for proactive safeguards. 

We are one of the youngest and the most underdeveloped States 

in the Union. This makes the job of our Alaska congressional delegation, and you, our Senate Appropriations Committee, a monumental task given Alaska’s immediate needs, especially when compared to the existing infrastructure of the other States. Our wonderful State has a lot to offer, but we do need to make it a safe 

place for all, residents and visitors alike. We sympathize with the 

other communities facing their own flooding and erosion problems 

and realize there is no one-size-fits-all solution. 

An elder from our village was telling us last week that he paid $19 for a roll of roofing paper and $102 to get it to our village, so 

his $19 roofing paper cost him $121. 

In conclusion, I invite you to visit Unalakleet and see the threats 

we face. The Federal programs are not functioning the way they 

should and the way we think you intended. We appreciate the 

study done by the General Accounting Office released last December and urge Congress to implement its recommendations. 

Again, thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Ivanoff. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE IVANOFF

Welcome to our great State of Alaska. We hope this is a very pleasant experience 

for you, in the hope that you will come back again. I am Steve Ivanoff from Unalakleet and will be speaking to you today as the President of Unalakleet Native Corporation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the flooding and erosion problems we 

have, and have had in our community of Unalakleet. Unfortunately, we are experienced on both of these issues. 

Introduction—Background 

Unalakleet is 393 air miles west of Anchorage on the easternmost part of Norton 

Sound. This location was selected to provide quick and easy access to the many subsistence activities that this area has to offer. It sits on a sand-spit between the Unalakleet River and the Norton Sound. This settlement has been estimated to be in 

existence for over 2,000 years. The population is approaching 800 with an Alaska 

Native population of approximately 85 percent, Inupiat and Yupik Eskimos, and 

Athabascan Indians. It is classified as a regional sub-hub, serving mail and freighting services for itself and four other villages. The Bering Straits School District central offices are located in Unalakleet serving 15 villages in the Norton Sound region, 

and a sub-regional clinic that provides medical services for Unalakleet residents and 

four other villages. Commercial fishing was the driving force of economics for decades but with the decline of the salmon stock and the crash of the herring market, 

Unalakleet has become a service providing community. A 6,000 foot runway was 

constructed in the 60’s as our village was a host to hundreds of Air Force service 

men for a couple of decades having an Air Force base 5 miles northeast of the village. A White Alice site was also stationed 10 miles to the east, along with a Federal 

Aviation Administration facility, housing a number of workers and their families. 

These facilities were all shut down with the end of the cold war and modern technology. As a result of these services we still have contaminated soils being extracted 

from our subsistence grounds as I speak. 

As a child I remember staying at the Air Force base for a few days during the 

floods of 1964, and 1974 along with the other youth, women, and elders from our 

village. Some homes, including ours, were removed from their foundations and many 
122

others filled with water halfway up the walls during these floods. For 29 years we 

were fortunate to experience milder fall storms and did not have another surge of 

this magnitude until the flood of 2003. However, within those 29 years we did experience the normal fall storms and saw buildings moved to escape disaster and some 

structures consumed by the ocean. With their own resources the community tried 

to combat the storms with crude means but saw all of these temporary fixes overwhelmed by the ocean. The village agencies were successful in having Unalakleet 

declared a disaster from the flood of 2003. The funds have yet to be allocated that 

will cover the cost of the clean up and repair to the gabion wall. In addition, areas 

that had protective rock need to be restored. This flood filled yards and basements 

with seawater that made it over the wall. I had to have rock hauled in by a local 

contractor to divert the water surge around my home. The first load he hauled in 

was sand and dissipated in seconds but fortunately the rock quickly diverted the 

water. 

My comments are not intended to be critical of the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) or any agency involved in assisting us. We appreciate any and 

all of the services they have graciously provided. 

Flooding.—The month of November is when we have the storms that have threatened our community with water surges from the ocean. In the late 70’s a road was 

constructed on the ocean side of the village serving two purposes. It provided an access route between the airport and the business section of the village, and more importantly, a barrier between the community structures and the ocean. This road is 

0.9 of a mile long and had water surging over it only on the lower section on the 

southern end. This lower section of the road is roughly 2 feet below the high point 

of this road and would be more effective if the whole road were to be raised at or 

above this level. Another road was constructed in the 80’s on the north-eastern part 

of the village providing an access road to the hillside and a barrier from the water 

surge. These two locations are different with the western side providing a relief 

from the pounding ocean waves. 

Erosion.—The greatest erosion occurs at the mouth of the river, additional erosion 

occurs along the beach. This takes place during the spring thaw and the fall storms. 

In the year 2000, a gabion wall erosion protection project was constructed beginning 

at the mouth of the river and running along the beach. This 1,400-foot project was 

funded by NRCS in the amount of $1 million. The gabion wall is shown in the attached photos. This wall protected structures within the community during the November flood of 2003. The gabion wall is good, but has room for improvement, as 

we all know hindsight is 20/20. As a former site supervisor for this project I feel 

these improvements can be applied: 

—The ends of a gabion wall needs to start and end at a solid base, this project 

should have been pulled in at the end to the existing road. Any structure should 

be back filled to eliminate the backwash that causes the loss of rock as observed. The plans did not call for backfill but we asked the site inspectors to 

have this done, fortunately they approved this otherwise a lot more damage 

would have occurred. 

—The ocean side of the project should have had a toe constructed below the lowtide line on the beach. This would eliminate the undercutting we are now observing. 

—A stronger wire mesh or alternate material should be used for the gabion baskets as we are seeing a high level of wear and tear from driftwood. We are concerned about the longevity of the wire mesh, as much of the coating on the wire 

has worn off, exposing the wire to the corrosive saltwater and accelerating rust. 

—We were not allowed to elevate the structure, leaving us to follow the contour 

of the surrounding grounds. Elevating the wall would have eliminated the need 

for a declaration providing disaster assistance. The Native Village of Unalakleet 

and funding from a Kawerak heavy equipment training program, provided for 

the haul of additional rock for the top of the gabions. This additional material 

acted as a splash rail that saved some buildings from structural damage. These 

are considerations for future improvements. They were left out of the original 

project due to funding constraints. We feel the life of this project has been diminished due to stringent funding guidelines. 

We are in desperate need of immediate protection from flooding and erosion. 

Based on current cost benefit analysis guidelines of the federal programs that address flooding and erosion we do not qualify for projects. The State of Alaska has 

provided local match for studies by the Army Corps of Engineers in the amount of 

over $50 million, and has yet to see construction projects of any significance from 

these studies. Our village has been, and currently is active, in trying to make a 

change to these policies. We are frustrated with the hurdles that we face. Until 
123

there are changes in federal policies, or an exemption is made for underdeveloped 

states such as Alaska, we will remain vulnerable. 

While most of the revenue generated in Alaska is extracted from the rural areas, 

we still struggle for simple things such as safety. In rural Alaska, subsistence in 

the biggest driving force of existence and has not been accounted for in the benefit 

side of the policies, however, I understand that it is now being considered. 

We have seen some successes with the construction of the roads mentioned above 

and the gabion wall but we need to eliminate the hardships that come with each 

disaster. Unfortunately there are funds available for reactive measures but little for 

proactive safeguards. 

We are one of the youngest and the most underdeveloped states in the Union. 

This makes the job of our Alaska Congressional delegation, and you, our Senate Appropriations Committee, a monumental task given Alaska’s immediate needs, especially when compared to the existing infrastructure of the other states. Our wonderful State has a lot to offer, but we do need to make it a safe place for all, residents 

and visitors alike. We sympathize with the other communities facing their own 

flooding and erosion problems and realize there is no one size fits all solution. 

In conclusion, I invite you to visit Unalakleet, and see the threats we face. The 

federal programs are not functioning the way they should, and the way we think 

you intended. We appreciate the study done by the General Accounting Office, released last December, and urge Congress to implement its recommendations.

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Rock. 

STATEMENT OF REX ROCK, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIKIGAQ 

CORPORATION 

Mr. ROCK. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would 

like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in this important 

hearing today on behalf of our Tri-Lateral Committee which consists of our Native Village of Point Hope, the city of Point Hope, 

and Tikigaq Corporation. I am currently the Chief Executive Officer of Tikigaq Corporation and am testifying on behalf of the TriLateral Committee. 

Point Hope is the oldest, continually inhabited community in 

Northwest Alaska, which dates back to 600 B.C. Point Hope is recognized nationally as a culturally relevant site. Today approximately 850 residents call Point Hope home. Our population is primarily Inupiaq, or in the western culture referred to as Eskimo. 

We are part of the North Slope Borough and are a second-class 

city. Point Hope is a bowhead whaling community. 

You might ask, why emphasize the fact that we are a bowhead 

whaling community? Our community has many traditions surrounding our whaling, and if there’s one thing it has taught us, it 

is that working as one for our people, you can accomplish great 

things. Our whaling culture is so much a part of our daily life that 

our community synergy is defined by it. Our community has 

worked together on our flooding issues and now we need your help. 

We’ve noticed a lot of changes in the weather patterns in Point 

Hope. The ice breaks up and leaves the shore a lot earlier than 

usual. We have always had ice until July and now it is gone the 

first week of June. In the fall the shore ice is late and often isn’t 

there to protect the shoreline when the fall storms hit. Storms are 

earlier with larger and stronger wave patterns. Our underground 

ice cellars are not as cold as they used to be. Some cellars that 

were built in permafrost are now melting and are full of water during the summer. 

Our beaches now have runoffs either from the ocean or from the 

lagoon or lakes, which makes the gravel a lot softer. Our runway 
124

has been in jeopardy of flooding several times. Community members worry about evacuation in the event of flooding. 

Over the past decade we realized that three separate organizations working to obtain any assistance for funding projects was 

cumbersome and likely to end unsuccessfully. Using common goals 

as our guiding factor, the Tri-Lateral Committee was formed in 

2001. Quarterly meetings are held and hosted by the different organizations. A list of priority projects was created and the organizations have supported working together as a method to target legislation and assistance from the North Slope Borough, the State of 

Alaska, and the Federal Government. 

The number one priority on the list is an evacuation road that 

would lead to higher ground in case of flooding. This was the primary concern of the community that came up at a variety of gatherings, from the Native Corporation’s annual meetings to community meetings and gatherings. 

Tikigaq relocated back in the late 1970s from the west side of our 

runway to where it is today due to extreme flooding. Today we still 

face flooding issues, mainly in the fall. The flooding occurs from 

strong winds blowing out of the West and Northwest creating large 

waves that bombard our North beach. Our North beach is about 12 

miles long and the south side is 18 miles long. The water actually 

reached the North end of our runway last year. Flooding of the 

runway is a growing concern of our community. 

One thing that I would note is that during last year’s storms, the 

winds were blowing at 30 knots. If they were at 45, definitely they 

would have been flooding the runway. 

Until last year we were able to push gravel with heavy equipment forming berms to stop the wave action. During last year’s 

storms we weren’t able to do this because our equipment began 

sinking in the gravel. This has never happened before. We were 

unable to use vehicles and equipment to help monitor the flooding. 

Simple things such as ATV four-wheelers sank into the gravel. 

That’s never happened before. 

Unlike prior years we didn’t know how much water was actually 

coming over the beach into the lagoon due to the sinking problem. 

You may be asking, why is this a concern? The only way out of our 

community during these storms is to the East on a 7-mile road that 

leads to our freshwater lake source. We constantly monitor the 

road during each storm. If this road is cut off due to flooding, we 

are stuck with nowhere to go. 

Potentially, all life and property would be lost. Sometimes during 

these storms the Kukpak River’s outlet into the ocean becomes 

sealed, then both the river and ocean begin filling and flooding the 

lagoon compounding the problem. During the storms, people begin 

to panic and worry, especially when we are unable to even monitor 

the severity of the problem like last year. What is of great concern 

is the possible loss of lives if we don’t get an evacuation road built. 

How would building an evacuation road help our community? 

First and foremost it would save lives in the event of flooding. It 

will also provide access to an area where we would be able to build 

a new runway. We all know that it is just a matter of time before 

the current one is under water and we will need a new one. We 

ask that you help us plan and build an evacuation road. 
125

1Our runway lines up with the prevailing winds out of the Northeast. The problem with this 

is that you are not always able to land aircraft due to the crosswinds from the Northwest. This 

means that in certain emergencies we may not be able to use the runway to evacuate the community. 

Again, I would like to thank you for allowing my community to 

be a part of this important hearing. We look forward to hearing 

from you on behalf of our Tri-Lateral Committee. Our village extends an open invitation to all of you. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REX ROCK

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in this important hearing 

today on behalf of our Tri-lateral Committee which consists of our Native Village 

of Point Hope (tribal organization), the City of Point Hope, and Tikigaq Corporation 

(Native corporation). I am currently the Chief Executive Officer of Tikigaq Corporation and am testifying on behalf of the Tri-lateral Committee. 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Point Hope (Tikigaq) is the oldest continually inhabited community in Northwest 

Alaska, which dates back to 600 B.C. Point Hope is recognized nationally as a culturally relevant site (National Historic Landmark). Today approximately 850 residents call Point Hope home. Our population is primarily Inupiaq, or in the western 

culture referred to as Eskimo. We are part of the North Slope Borough and are a 

second-class city. Point Hope is a Bowhead whaling community. In fact, our ancestors crossed the Siberian land bridge some 2,000 years ago to hunt bowhead whales. 

You might ask why emphasize the fact that we are a Bowhead whaling community? Our community has many traditions surrounding our whaling and if there is 

one thing it has taught us, it is that working as one for our people you can accomplish great things. Our whaling culture is so much a part of our daily life that our 

community synergy is defined by it. Our community has worked together on our 

flooding issues and now we need your help. 

The Problems in Point Hope 

We have noticed a lot of changes in the weather patterns in Point Hope. The ice 

breaks up and leaves the shore a lot earlier then usual. We have always had ice 

until July and now it is gone the first week of June. In the fall the shore ice is late 

and often isn’t there to protect the shoreline when the fall storms hit. Storms are 

earlier with larger and stronger wave patterns. Our underground ice cellars are not 

as cold as they use to be. Some cellars that were built in permafrost are now melting and full of water during the summer. Our beaches now have runoffs either from 

the ocean or from the lagoon or lakes, which makes the gravel a lot softer. Our runway has been in jeopardy of flooding several times. Community members worry 

about evacuating in the event of flooding. 

What we have done as a community to address the problems 

Over the past decade we realized that three separate organizations working to obtain any assistance for funding projects was cumbersome and likely to end unsuccessfully. Using common goals as our guiding factor, the Tri-lateral Committee was 

formed in 2001. Quarterly meetings are held and hosted by the different organizations. A list of priority projects was created and the organizations have supported 

working together as a method to target legislation and assistance from the North 

Slope Borough, the State of Alaska and the Federal Government. 

The number one priority on the list is an evacuation road that would lead to higher ground in case of flooding. This was the primary concern of the community that 

came up at a variety of gatherings from the Native Corporation’s annual meetings 

to community meetings and gatherings. 

Tikigaq relocated back in the late 70’s from the west side of our runway to where 

it is today due to extreme flooding. Today we still face flooding issues, mainly in 

the fall. The flooding occurs from strong winds blowing out of the West and Northwest creating large waves that bombard our North beach. Our North beach is about 

12 miles long and the south side is 18 miles long. The water actually reached the 

North end of our runway last year.1 Flooding of the runway is a growing concern 

for our community. 
126

2Some of the photos we submitted show burms we built out of the beach gravel to protect 

our community. A subsequent photo shows that our efforts failed and the burm was washed out 

to sea. About three years prior to that, the water reached the west side of our runway and the 

runway itself served as an actual barrier for our community. You will also notice in some photos 

a partial seawall was built out of huge rocks that were brought in from Nome. That wall has 

begun to wash out as well. 

Until last year we are able to push gravel with heavy equipment, if needed, to 

help slow the wave action and protect the beach and the community.2 During last 

years storms, we weren’t able to do this because our equipment began sinking into 

the gravel, this has never happened before. We were unable to use vehicles and 

equipment to help monitor the flooding. Unlike prior years we didn’t know how 

much water was actually coming over the beach into the lagoon due to the sinking 

problem. You may be asking why is this a concern? The only way out of our community during these storms is to the East on a 7-mile road that leads to our fresh 

water lake source. We constantly monitor the road during each storm. If this road 

is cut off due to flooding, we are stuck with nowhere to go. Potentially all life and 

property would be lost. Sometimes during these storms the Kukpak rivers outlet 

into the ocean becomes sealed then both the river and ocean begin filling and flooding the lagoon compounding the problem. During the storms people begin to panic 

and worry especially when we are unable to even monitor the severity of the problem like last year. What is of great concern is the possible loss of lives if we don’t 

get an evacuation road built. 

Conclusion 

How would building an evacuation road help our community? First and foremost 

it will save lives in the event of flooding. It will also provide access to an area where 

we would be able to build a new runway. We all know that it is just a matter of 

time before the current one is under water and we will need a new one. Please help 

us plan and build an evacuation road. 

Again I would like to thank you for allowing my community to be a part of this 

important hearing. We look forward to hearing from you and on behalf of our Trilateral Committee. Our villages extends an open invitation to all of you, know that 

you will be welcome in our community at any time. If you have questions or comments feel free to call either Rex Tuzroyluk, Jr., President of Native Village (368–

2330), Ronald Oviok, Sr., City Mayor (368–2537) or Sayers Tuzroyluk, Sr., Chairman Tikigaq Corp. (368–2235)

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. Your village was 

moved in the past once, wasn’t it, Mr. Rock? 

Mr. ROCK. That’s correct, in the 1970s. 

Chairman STEVENS. The new location is on the other side—on 

the upland side of the airport now? 

Mr. ROCK. Back then it was what the Borough could afford. We 

moved on the east end of the runway, about 11⁄2 miles. 

Chairman STEVENS. Have you surveyed out a site that if you 

have to move you would prefer to move to? 

Mr. ROCK. Yes. It’s higher ground and it’s about 10 to 15 miles 

from where we currently are. 

Chairman STEVENS. Has the FAA or the State helped you locate 

a new site for a runway? 

Mr. ROCK. No, they haven’t. 

Chairman STEVENS. You have a traditional graveyard in your 

area, don’t you? 

Mr. ROCK. That’s correct. It’s marked by whale jawbones. 

Chairman STEVENS. Does your plan include moving that graveyard? 

Mr. ROCK. Not currently, no. We just continually expand it, you 

know. 

Chairman STEVENS. Didn’t it suffer some erosion recently? 

Mr. ROCK. It’s getting very close to that. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you. 
127

Mr. Short, your area is the one area that has been successful in 

obtaining the funds. I remember we worked on that for a long time 

with the Corps of Engineers. You sound satisfied with what the 

Corps of Engineers has done. Is that right? 

Mr. SHORT. For the most part, yes. 

Chairman STEVENS. Do you have plans for an extension of that 

now? Are you asking the Corps to extend it further? 

Mr. SHORT. 1,200 more feet. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you. 

Ms. Vorderstrasse, I was in Barrow and it seems to me that the 

beach is coming close now to your sewage containment pool and 

also to your city landfill dump. Is that right? 

Ms. VORDERSTRASSE. That’s correct, Senator. It is very close. We 

have one pump station which is very close to our beach, and that 

pump station provides service to at least one-third of our community. And our community center is very close to the beach, and during the storms, as you’ve been seeing here on the slides, it becomes 

a great concern. 

And as you very well know, where Oliver Letuk’s (ph) house is 

on the bluffs—the erosion there—we have already moved some of 

those houses once before. They are going to have to be relocated 

here in the very near future. 

Chairman STEVENS. That’s because of the melting of the substructure in the permafrost, right? 

Ms. VORDERSTRASSE. Correct. 

Chairman STEVENS. Has your city approved a relocation plan? 

Ms. VORDERSTRASSE. No, we haven’t. We work very closely with 

the North Slope Borough in reference to plans such as relocation 

and whatnot. We work with Mayor Ahmaogak. They’re adding to 

our runway. It’s kind of a concern because of the rapidness of the 

erosion and whatnot. Our runway is close to—one end of it is going 

to be very close to our beach. 

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Ivanoff, what’s the situation with regard 

to your runway? It’s down closer to the sea than the village. 

Mr. IVANOFF. Yes, sir. In the flood of last fall part of the fencing 

on the runway was eroded. The State DOT is coming out with a 

project that will put in rock on the west side, ocean side, and I’m 

not sure if they are going to build it up. But they are in the process 

of upgrading the runway. But for the most part, the runway—just 

a section of the runway, that’s correct. 

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Burns, do you have any questions? 

Senator BURNS. I don’t have any questions. The structure we’re 

going to have to change in order to do some of these things. Knowing what your situation is, I don’t have any questions for you, but 

we’re going to deal with the structure on what will facilitate maybe 

getting you some help. That’s what we’re dealing with right now. 

You’ve all got your different challenges in your communities. It’s 

good to hear about those. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Sununu. 

Senator SUNUNU. I would be interested to know, in each of your 

villages, what, if anything, has been done locally to try to slow the 

erosion process and whether or not any of these efforts, even in the 

short term, have been at all successful. 
128

Mr. SHORT. I sort of talked about what we initially did back in 

the 1980s was construct an 8,000-foot seawall. We’re currently 

looking at putting in another 1,200 feet, which would give us just 

under 2 miles of seawall right in front of our community. It’s been 

very stable; we haven’t lost any more land since then. The $4 million that Senator Stevens helped us get to extend that 

1,200 feet has been very helpful along with the other funds. 

Senator SUNUNU. That work was originally done in the 1980s? 

Mr. SHORT. In the 1980s and throughout the 1990s. It has been 

a continuous process to get there. I think probably Bethel is one 

of the success stories, and we would be happy to share any of that 

information. 

Senator SUNUNU. What was the total, or what has been the total 

cost of the seawall construction? 

Mr. SHORT. Right now I think we’re right around $28 million 

with the new 1,200 feet. 

Senator SUNUNU. It’s along the river? 

Mr. SHORT. Yes. We call it a seawall. 

Ms. VORDERSTRASSE. The city of Barrow has used real huge bags 

and they stuffed the bags with gravel, and then they put them up 

against the bluffs and along the beach. And as you have seen here 

on the slides, during the storms and even before the storms they 

used a tractor to make berms of gravel, and that is kind of our 

temporary seawall. 

Senator SUNUNU. How successful has it been? 

Ms. VORDERSTRASSE. Not very successful. Because as the storms 

come in—and it just—the ocean just beats on those bags, it beats 

beyond the bags, and the erosion is continuing to where the—it’s 

just creating another section in the back and the waves that come 

in sometimes are greater than the temporary sand berms that they 

built and they come onto our road. 

Senator SUNUNU. Is the labor and the organization for that effort 

handled locally? 

Ms. VORDERSTRASSE. It’s handled by the North Slope Borough. 

Senator SUNUNU. Mr. Ivanoff. 

Mr. IVANOFF. In the back of my testimony you’ll see some pictures. On the first page you’ll see a higher section of the road built 

in the late 1970s that prevented water. The logs that you see in 

these photos came out of the Yukon River. With the tide they move 

north and they land up on our beaches there. 

But the top photo shows the road that was built in the 1970s. 

The high part of that road has really seen some influx from the 

ocean, but the southern end is 2 feet lower than the higher part 

of the road and has water and debris going over the top. 

On erosion, you’ll notice the gabion wall on the second page of 

the pictures. It was constructed in 2000 and it has been a major 

blessing, you know. There are problems with it. You’ll see on the 

bottom photo, the second page, the wire mesh part is starting to 

break up. It has halted the erosion, but we’re worried about the 

longevity of the life of this product. 

Senator SUNUNU. What was the total cost of the work done in 

2000? 

Mr. IVANOFF. It was in the area of $1 million. 

Senator SUNUNU. And how was it funded? 
129

Mr. IVANOFF. Through NRCS. 

Senator SUNUNU. Mr. Rock? 

Mr. ROCK. We don’t have anything that’s been successful. In the 

summer during these months, the corporation with the Borough, 

loaned equipment and we have a lot of volunteers that go and actually push gravel and push berms up to help protect for the fall 

storms that we know are going to hit. They tried at one time some 

rocks from Nome; they imported from Nome to certain sections to 

see if that would work. That’s getting washed out. The runway 

itself that sits to the west of the community serves as an actual 

barrier. The water came up to the level of the runway and it 

stopped right there. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. We thank you all very much. We are going 

to go back with a lot more information than we had before. Thank 

you very much for those photographs. They’re helpful, Mr. Ivanoff. 

I do appreciate that. We appreciate your coming to give us the information we need to go back and try to work this out. Thank you 

very much. 

Our next panel is Dr. Joseph Suhayda, oceanic consultant; Mr. 

Rexford from Kaktovik; Luci Eningowuk, Chairperson on 

Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation; Enoch Adams, Chair from 

Kivalina’s Relocation Planning Committee; and Stanley Tom, Tribal Liaison for Newtok Tribal Council. 

Dr. Suhayda, if you will wait, we’ll make you a separate panel 

at the end. Okay? 

Dr. SUHAYDA. Yes, that’s fine. 

Chairman STEVENS. You’re going to show us the Bastion. Let’s 

take a 5-minute break. 

Senator Sununu is on a long distance call and he’ll be in in a 

minute, but I’m pleased to welcome Mr. Tom, Stanley Tom, Tribal 

Liaison from Newtok; Mr. Enoch Adams from Kivalina, their Relocation Planning Committee; Ms. Eningowuk, Chairperson from 

Shishmaref; and Mr. Rexford, the tribal administrator from 

Kaktovik. 

The last witness has a little display, so we’ll get with him after 

the four of you. Let’s start with you, Mr. Tom. 

Thank you very much for coming. 

STATEMENT OF STANLEY TOM, TRIBAL LIAISON, NEWTOK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL 

Mr. TOM. Thank you. My name is Stanley Tom. I serve on the 

Newtok Traditional Council. I have been with the Newtok Traditional Council since 1997 as president, before the Newtok Traditional Council became contracted to Public Law 93–638. We are 

fairly new with Public Law 93–638. It’s our fourth year and we are 

in the learning process. 

Newtok Traditional Council had a 3-year agreement with the 

Army Corps back in October 2001, and it was Planning Assistance 

to State project with an agreement for cost-share study relocation 

improvement. Ever since the agreement, I feel it’s a slow process 

and the Native Village of Newtok needs to lay out the new village 

site at Nelson Island before erosion hits the existing village. 
130

The land exchange was finalized between the Newtok Native 

Corporation and Fish and Wildlife Service on April 28, 2004, by 

Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton. 

The Army Corps of Engineers needs to speed up the new village 

site. We had a previous meeting with the agencies and I had a concern with the FAA. They said they would not build the airport, 

only if we moved the village site, and it’s way too late to build an 

airport. 

How will we ship the supplies to the new village site when we 

start to build the town on the new site such as: The barge landing 

area, water infiltration gallery area, the proposed airport site, and 

the area of the proposed infrastructure for roads and streets? 

The ASCG made a proposed land use and transportation plan for 

Newtok back in 2001 to BIA. During the BIA workshop I checked 

our proposed planning list. We are at the bottom of the list for the 

year 2020. That’s way too late for the roads to be built for the village site. 

ASCG, Inc. also made a background for relocation report for January 2004, and the report was sent to various agencies. We had 

some replies from the background and relocation report. The report 

covered the introduction, village characteristics, the ocean problem, 

contained the erosion problem, statistical analysis of the erosion 

rate. The average annual erosion rate is about 62 to 130 feet per 

year. The existing barge landing is being impacted by erosion now 

and by 2006 it will be gone. 

Under my observation the existing airport will be impacted in 

the year 2011 or less, because there are small lakes in that area 

and in that area our water resource will be impacted first. 

The Department of Commerce and Economic Development will 

be doing a community profile mapping of the existing and the new 

relocation site, and I need both to be done as soon as possible, especially the new village site so we can start working on the environmental review record for the new village site, also known as the 

National Environment Policy Act. 

The Newtok Traditional Council needs to do a community comprehensive planning for the new village site, and I just finished a 

mini-grant for $30,000 from the State of Alaska. I hope it will be 

approved because the Federal and State will not appropriate any 

funds without a community comprehensive plan for any planning 

funds. 

The Newtok Traditional Council has approved its village move by 

the Background for Relocation Report. We need to start establishing the new site this year. If the Army Corps of Engineers are 

not ready to start a new site, the Newtok Traditional Council 

should hire an architect and engineer to speed up the new village 

site. The problem is the Newtok Traditional Council does not have 

any funding. 

I know we made a 100 percent Federal partnership agreement 

with the Army Corps of Engineers to assist us on the development 

of our relocation effort. 

There are three funds available. The first is the Planning Assistance Program, Alaska Villages Erosion Technical Assistance Program, and the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act. 
131

I would like the full Senate Committee to speed up the Newtok 

relocation to start on the village site before the existing village is 

impacted by erosion. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you. We’ll have some questions later. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STANLEY TOM

My name is Stanley Tom, Tribal Liaison, for the Newtok Traditional Council. 

I have been working with Newtok Traditional Council since 1997 as President, before the Newtok Traditional Council became contracted to Public Law 93–638. 

We’re fairly new with Public Law 93–638, it’s our 4th year and we are in a learning process. 

Newtok Traditional Council had a 3-year agreement with the Army Corps back 

in October 2001, and it was Planning Assistance to State (PAS) project with the 

agreement for cost-share study relocation improvement project. 

Ever since the agreement, I feel it’s a slow process and Native Village of Newtok 

needs to lay out the new village site at Nelson Island, before the erosion hits the 

existing village. 

The land exchange was finalized between the Newtok Native Corporation and 

Fish and Wildlife on April 28, 2004 by Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton. 

The Army Corps of Engineers need to speed up the new village site. We had a 

previous meeting with agencies, and I had a concern with the FAA. They said they 

would not build the airport, only if we moved the village site, and it’s way too late 

to build an airport. 

How will we ship the supplies to the new village site when we started to build 

the Township or the new village site such as: barge landing area, water infiltration 

gallery area, the proposed airport site, and the area of the proposed village infrastructure area roads and streets. 

The ASCG, Inc. made a proposed land use and transportation plan for Newtok 

village back in December of 2001 to Bureau of Indian Affairs. During the BIA Providers Workshop, I checked on our proposed transportation planning list. We are on 

the bottom list for fiscal year 2020. That’s way too late for the roads to be built for 

the new village site. 

ASCG, Inc. also made a ‘‘Background for Relocation report’’ January of 2004, and 

the report was sent to various agencies. We had some replies from the background 

relocation report, the report covered the introduction, village characteristics, summary of erosion problem, it contained the erosion problem, statistical analysis of the 

erosion rate, the average annual erosion rate is about 62 to 130 feet per year, the 

existing barge landing is being impacted by the erosion now and by 2006 it will be 

gone. 

Under my observation the existing airport will be impacted in the year 2011 or 

less because there are small lakes in that area, and in that area our water resource 

will be impacted first. 

Department of Commerce and Economic Development will be doing a community 

profile mapping of the existing and the new relocation site, and I need both to be 

conducted as soon as possible, especially the new village site so we can start working on the environmental review record for the new village site. 

The Newtok Traditional Council needs to do a community comprehensive planning for the new village site, and I just finished a mini-grant for $30,000 from the 

State of Alaska and I’m hoping it will be approved, because the federal and the 

State will not appropriate any funds without the community comprehensive planning for any planning funds. 

The Newtok Traditional Council has proved its village move by ‘‘Background for 

Relocation Report.’’ We need to start establishing the new village site this year and 

if the Army Corps of Engineers are not ready to start the new village site, then the 

Newtok Traditional Council should hire an architect and engineers to speed-up the 

new village site. The problem is that the Newtok Traditional Council does not have 

any funding. 

I know we made a 100 percent federal partnership agreement with the Army 

Corps of Engineers to assist us on the development of our relocation effort. 

There are three funds available; first program is Planning Assistance to State 

Program (PAS), Alaska Villages Erosion Technical Assistance program (AVETA), 

and Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act (EWDA). 

I would like the full Senate Committee to speed-up the Newtok relocation effort 

to start on the new village site, before the existing village is impacted by the erosion.
132

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Adams. You are chair of the Kivalina 

Relocation Planning Committee. 

STATEMENT OF ENOCH ADAMS, JR., CHAIRMAN, KIVALINA RELOCATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to discuss the 

flooding and erosion issues affecting Kivalina. I’m Enoch Adams, 

Jr., chairman of the Kivalina Relocation Planning Committee. 

With your permission, I would like to present background information regarding our relocation efforts, the misunderstandings 

that came about, and a possible solution that’s deemed necessary 

by the Kivalina Relocation Planning Committee. 

In the late 1980s and early 1990s the subject of relocation was 

brought to Kivalina’s attention because the Federal Government 

would not build a water and sewage system due to the former and 

current conditions of our community. At a joint meeting of the city 

of Kivalina and the Native Village of Kivalina, a decision was made 

by both entities to establish a planning committee made up of local 

community members that had various differing backgrounds to ensure that all segments of the community would be represented. I 

was appointed to this committee to represent the education community because I was a teacher at the local high school at the time. 

While I’m not currently a teacher, I’m still a member of the committee as the local entities made one of the conditions of the committee to be that the members serve in perpetuity so that attrition 

of knowledge be held to a minimum. In other words, the less new 

appointments are made, the less need for educating new members. 

Soon after the appointments were made, the Kivalina Relocation 

Planning Committee was formally recognized by the local entities 

and introduced to the community in 1996. Shortly, the Northwest 

Arctic Borough was asked to become involved as the lead entity because of the apparent lack of resources as to how this whole relocation idea would be implemented. Because of the mitigating costs 

recognized by the Federal Government of building a water and 

sewer system at the present site, the Alaska Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District was involved from the beginning. 

Currently, we are in the eighth year of a 5-year planning phase. 

This fact is largely due to the fact that all those involved, including 

the Army Corps of Engineers, have never done a comprehensive relocation project where an entire community has been moved. Although some of those involved have mentioned the fact that such 

a move is costly is the primary reason for the length of time that 

this has taken. 

According to the original timeline draft by the Corps, construction of the site should have begun last summer, in 2003. But we 

are at some point in the last half of the planning stage. And I have 

always believed that when the time comes for seeking funds for 

this apparently ‘‘daunting’’ project, as the GAO report has described it, we do have a legitimate reason to ask for such funds. 

Because, beneath it all, the U.S. Government does have the 

underpinnings of equity. It is that sometimes which has to be 

brought to the surface by anyone involved. 
133

Over the years in countless meetings and discussions both public 

and private by all those involved, some things have been said that 

should not have been said, conclusions have been made that are 

not accurate, especially about our people, and, particularly, our 

community, which has brought some of us to the point of not 

speaking at all. But those of us from Kivalina will still continue to 

strive to have healthy discussions about our needs, especially with 

this relocation effort. We are still trying to help others understand 

where we as a community are coming from. 

I do not think that a blanket funding for the Alaskan villages is 

wise. I believe every community’s flooding and erosion issues are 

so unique that they need to be dealt with individually. My biggest 

fear regarding this is that some community’s, or communities’, 

need, or needs, might be overlooked. I think we all agree that an 

expanded role of the Federal Government is necessary. We all 

agree, too, that the cost/benefit analysis requirements need to be 

changed, maybe even new ones be added. 

I further believe that it is incumbent of us to remind the Federal 

Government of its trust responsibility to tribes, which brings me to 

my last point. 

As you may understand why, I purposely did not go into detail 

about the misunderstandings that resulted. I also need to mention 

that yesterday some stated that they represent all the villages in 

Alaska. I respectfully disagree with that statement because what 

I further heard, I disagree with. And I do not think I need to go 

into detail what it was because of the solution I think that is needed. 

In Kivalina we do have an excellent working relationship with 

the Native Village of Kivalina. In the memorandum of agreement 

between the city of Kivalina, the Native Village of Kivalina, and 

the Northwest Arctic Borough, for some reason or reasons only the 

Native Village of Kivalina has backed up its responsibilities with 

both financial and staffing requests from the KRPC. Because of certain Federal agencies’ trust responsibility to tribes, the Native Village of Kivalina is in a unique position to work directly with the 

U.S. Congress. 

I do not think an expanded role of the Denali Commission is necessary because they may just end up repeating services that can 

be capably done by the Native Village of Kivalina. I need to mention that for several years the KRPC functioned very well when we 

received funds through the Native Village of Kivalina to hire a 

local relocation coordinator, which is called for in the memorandum 

of agreement. I know that if this sort of relationship is established 

with the Federal Government regarding our village relocation, that 

the needs of our people will be met. 

Thank you for listening to my testimony, and I will try my best 

to answer any questions that you may have. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. 

Ms. Eningowuk. 

STATEMENT OF LUCI ENINGOWUK, CHAIRPERSON, SHISHMAREF EROSION AND RELOCATION COALITION 

Ms. ENINGOWUK. The Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition thanks you for this opportunity to testify before you today. 
134

I am Luci Eningowuk, Chairperson of the Coalition, which is 

made up of the governing bodies of the city of Shishmaref, the Native Village of Shishmaref, and the Shishmaref Native Corporation. 

We have also representatives from the youth council and the elder 

council. I wish to state that the elders are an integral part of our 

planning. 

Shishmaref is where it is because of what the ocean, rivers, 

streams, and land provide to us. If the water and land couldn’t sustain us, we would have moved out long ago. Subsistence is our economic base. Why do you work if not to feed your families? Our grocery store is out there, in the water and on the land. We are 

Shishmaref; we are Inupiaq Natives. Subsistence is our way of life. 

We are hunters and we are gatherers. Who and what we are is 

based on how we live and the way we live. We have been here for 

countless generations. We value our way of life; we value the environment as it sustains us; it provides for our very existence. 

I have been very fortunate in my life. I have traveled to many 

places, including the home of our Federal Government, Washington, DC. I have seen our national treasures. Shishmaref, too, is 

a national treasure. But right now we are holding on as we watch 

the sea eat away at everything we, and you, have built. 

We are proud people. It is very difficult for us to ask for your assistance, but we do ask for it, for our very existence, for my people. 

Please remember that we are your people, too. I am here to ask for 

your help. 

We have provided a packet for you with additional information, 

photos, and a CD with a video file of the November 2003 storm. 

I plan to address four points that are important to the Village 

of Shishmaref. They are relocation of the existing community to the 

mainland, ongoing beach erosion and efforts to minimize its impact, 

lack of funding for immediate infrastructure needs, and the need 

for State and Federal multi-agency coordination. 

The Coalition is committed to the relocation of the community. 

A relocation project is underway and is currently in its early planning stage. The relocation project must be completed as the integrity of our community is dependent upon it. 

Our goal for the project is to provide expedited relocation of the 

community to the mainland. Within this effort the project must 

provide both a safe place to live and conditions that support the 

subsistence lifestyle for the people of Shishmaref. The people of 

Shishmaref are committed to keeping our community intact and we 

are committed to our heritage, which includes the subsistence way 

of life passed on to us by our ancestors. 

The community was established as a year-round settlement as a 

result of the introduction of Government services, including education and health care. Also, tribal members moved within our traditional lands for the subsistence harvest. We, like our ancestors, 

follow the seasons. 

Every year, until the protective winter pack ice returns, we agonize whether the next storm will be the one that wipes us out. To 

date, we have lost numerous buildings and boats, an ATV, snow 

machines, meat-drying racks and buried food. Tragically, we have 

lost one home. So far we have been able to move 18 threatened 

homes to the National Guard Armory building. Moving these struc-
135

tures is a labor-intensive process. We are quickly running out of 

space on our ever-shrinking island. 

The community of Shishmaref had determined that the threat to 

life from reoccurring beachfront erosion required immediate action. 

I want to cover my points; I have four. 

One, relocation of the existing community to the mainland. 

The community has expressed and reconfirmed its desire to retain community integrity through relocation. Overwhelming support was shown through a community-wide vote held on July 10, 

2002. The community and Coalition would like to stress the immediacy of the problem and continue to push for an expedited relocation of Shishmaref to a place on the nearby mainland location, Tin 

Creek. 

The Coalition, with the support of the Kawerak, has to date coordinated a significant number of agencies, including the National 

Resources Conservation Service. I wish to take a moment to thank 

NRCS for their work in assessing suitable relocation sites. Their 

resource team has shown the greatest respect of our needs and has 

proven that working with a high level of cooperation is possible. 

With the assistance of the NRCS we have narrowed the search for 

our mainland location. 

Others that we have worked with include the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, and local and regional entities. Our experience has 

shown that there’s a lack of continuity between the various Federal 

and State agencies and programs. There is an extensive amount of 

executive branch interpretation. 

For the most part we have found that none of the agencies have 

programs that cover a full range of our needs. Matching requirements in many cases are exorbitant, precluding us from qualifying 

for assistance, as Shishmaref has no viable funding source. 

Our community is heavily reliant on subsistence, as are most 

rural Alaskan communities. Our diet is based on the animals and 

plants found nearby. Relocation of our community to an area away 

from our home territory would have a devastating effect on how we 

exist and who we are. 

Consolidation with another community is not acceptable as it will 

cause extensive competition for subsistence foods and depletion of 

natural resources. Our way of life is centered around subsistence; 

it is the driving force of our existence. This is illustrated by the 

scattering of Alaska Native villages across the State. 

The no-action option for Shishmaref is the annihilation of our 

community by dissemination. We are a community tied together by 

family, common goals, values, and tradition. We are different from 

our neighbors. The community of Shishmaref has a long and proud 

history. We are unique and need to be valued as a national treasure by the people of the United States. We deserve the attention 

and help of the American people and the Federal Government. 

Our plight has attracted statewide, national, and international 

attention. To date we have provided information to numerous 

media organizations. The international press is particularly interested to know what the Federal Government is doing to help us. 

Two, ongoing beach erosion and efforts to minimize its impact. 
136

The use of Federal funds places a requirement for advance planning. This requirement precludes an immediate relocation as an intact community, because we anticipate that even an expedited relocation will take years to prepare for. In the meantime, we continue 

to seek assistance to provide shoreline protection for the immediate 

community. Our Strategic Relocation Plan for resettlement is anticipated to begin by 2009. 

Kawerak, our regional nonprofit tribal government consortium 

applied for and built on our behalf a 450-foot armor rockgabion seawall. The funding came from the Indian Reservation Roads, IRR, 

program which allows 100 percent Federal funding. Nineteen villages that participated in Kawerak’s program helped to fund our 

project with funds identified for their benefit by the IRR program. 

We have been approved for a section 14, emergency shoreline 

protection project with the Army Corps of Engineers. The project 

is to provide protection for the shoreline in front of our school, approximately 230 feet. The section 14 has a $1 million Federal cap 

and requires a 35 percent match. The State has committed to provide the local match for this project; however, it is very difficult for 

the State to come up with funding for these projects. Therefore, we 

request that the Federal Government waive the cost-share requirement for the Alaska Native village projects associated with flooding 

and erosion. 

In addition, Shishmaref has worked closely with the State to find 

additional funding to protect an additional 3,000 feet of the community. The legislature has put $2 million in appropriations, but 

the appropriation is not yet finalized. These funds are intended to 

provide for local match to Federal programs. We continue to have 

serious concerns that these funds would be required to go toward 

feasibility studies instead of construction. 

We recommend that Federal programs designed to help communities at risk must be redesigned by Congress to minimize burdensome planning requirements. The emphasis must be on funding actual construction. In addition, amendments to legislation must be 

written that consider the ability of a community to fund the local 

match or the local match requirement should be allowable. 

Disaster programs are designed to do cleanup after the emergency rather than allocating funds for prevention. Both the State 

and Federal agencies have told us they couldn’t provide assistance 

until a disaster declaration has been made. The declaration itself 

requires a dollar value for the damage. In our case, because no 

value is provided for the lost land and because we have been able 

to take homes out of harm’s way, we don’t qualify. Alaska Natives 

don’t have the infrastructure found elsewhere in the United States; 

therefore, there is little value assessed when there are losses within Alaska’s rural communities. 

Three, lack of funding for immediate and future infrastructure 

needs. 

Shishmaref does not have modern water and sewer. Honeybucket 

haul systems are located in front of every two to four homes. The 

city hauls these containers to the landfill 1.5 miles to the west end 

of the island. In 2002 shortly after the community voted to relocate, 

we learned that the agencies who had previously identified infrastructure projects for Shishmaref would no longer provide us with 
137

assistance, such as a new clinic, tank farm, water and sewer. We 

believe that the decision made by funding agencies to either assist 

or not needs to take into consideration the human impacts. 

Alaska Village Electric, AVEC, designed our tank farm project so 

that it could be relocated, however, this was not acceptable to the 

funding agency, the Denali Commission. We prefer that the water 

and sewer project be reserved for our relocation site. Haphazard actions and decisions have far-reaching negative social and economic 

impacts. 

Currently, there is no infrastructure at the new site. We request 

assistance to build an emergency evacuation building at the Tin 

Creek relocation site, a structure that would be the command center and provide room for evacuation offices, clinic, school, and warehouse for emergency supplies should the island have to be evacuated. Continued development of current basic essential health and 

sanitation needs must be done. The community needs a healthy environment. 

We don’t know the actual costs to relocate the village. We believe 

that much of the infrastructure that will be needed for the new location has been moved from our current location. Because of this, 

the deferred infrastructure development that would have been 

needed on the island, roads, clinic, water, sewer, et cetera, should 

be considered in the equation of calculating the costs of relocation. 

Four, the need for State and Federal multi-agency coordination. 

The process of relocating an entire community requires extensive 

inter-agency cooperation and coordination. There is currently no 

one agency stepping forward to take the lead. To be blunt, no agency’s programs are designed to provide for a project as complex as 

a full village relocation. Each agency has its own responsibility, 

and often there is a gap in responsibility from program to program. 

We have reviewed the GAO report completed in December 2003 

and we encourage you to consider their recommendations. We 

strongly agree that the coordinated effort to address issues caused 

by erosion and flooding of the threatened Alaska Native villages is 

necessary. We believe that whichever agency is assigned to lead the 

effort, it must be one that has proven itself to be reliable in addressing the needs of Alaska Native villages. 

The situation facing Shishmaref needs to be categorized as an 

emergency, and overly burdensome Federal regulations must be 

eased. Many Federal requirements drive up the costs. We believe 

that the relocation could be accomplished at a significantly reduced 

cost if the agencies were allowed to act under emergency exceptions 

and if the agencies were not required to implement overly burdensome feasibility studies and cost-benefit analysis. We are not requesting a lessening of the engineering or NEPA requirements, but 

an approach that utilizes common sense. 

The GAO report provides excellent recommendations to address 

the needs of Alaska Native villages threatened by erosion and 

flooding. We urge Congress to take action based on their report. 

However, our situation is urgent. We are unlikely to survive until 

new statutes, regulations, or policies can be developed and implemented. 

Because of this, we request that Shishmaref be identified as a 

demonstration project with maximum flexibility authorized and 
138

that it be used to help determine what changes are needed in the 

statutes, regulations, and policies overall. 

Shishmaref does not have the necessary internal administrative 

capacity to facilitate such a massive effort without additional funding and technical assistance. Kawerak provides staff support and 

facilitation to Shishmaref, but is limited primarily to the transportation components of the relocation. Shishmaref requests additional 

assistance from the Federal Government. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify before you and to share 

with you my home, Shishmaref. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. Excellent statement. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LUCI ENINGOWUK

The Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition thank you for this opportunity 

to testify before you today. I am Luci Eningowuk, Chairperson of the Coalition. The 

Coalition is made up of the governing bodies of the City of Shishmaref and the Native Village of Shishmaref (the federally recognized tribe), and the board of the 

Shishmaref Native Corporation. We have provided a packet for you today with additional information, photos, and a CD with a video file of the November 2003 storm. 

I plan to address four points that are important to the community of Shishmaref. 

They are: (1) relocation of the existing community to the mainland; (2) ongoing 

beach erosion and efforts to minimize its impact; (3) lack of funding for immediate 

infrastructure needs; and (4) the need for state and federal multi-agency coordination. 

The Coalition is committed to the relocation of the community. A relocation 

project is underway and is currently in its early planning stage. The relocation 

project must be completed, as the integrity of our community is dependent upon it. 

Our goal for the project is to provide for an expedited relocation of the community 

to the mainland. Within this effort, the project must provide both a safe place to 

live and conditions that support the subsistence life style for the people of 

Shishmaref. The people of Shishmaref are committed to keeping our community intact, and we are committed to preserving our heritage, which includes the subsistence way of life passed on to us by our ancestors. 

Before I begin, on behalf of the Coalition, I must commend the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), for their 

work in assessing suitable relocation sites. Their research team has shown the 

greatest respect of our needs, and has proven that working with a high level of cooperation is possible. To date, the NRCS has assessed nine sites identified by the 

community. With their assistance, we have narrowed the search for a mainland location. 

Introduction—Background 

The community of Shishmaref is situated on a barrier island no wider than onequarter of a mile and 3 miles in length. Shishmaref is located approximately 20 

miles south of the Arctic Circle and 50 miles northeast of the Bering Strait. The 

community is home to 600 people mostly consisting of Inupiaq Natives. The community is a traditional native village that is heavily reliant on subsistence lifestyle activities based in and around the Chukchi Sea. The local economy is subsistence 

based, supplemented by part-time and seasonal jobs, and the sale of traditional arts 

and crafts. 

The community, was established as a year round settlement, as a result of the 

introduction of government services including education and health care. Prior to 

this, tribal members moved within our traditional lands for the subsistence harvest. 

Our ancestors followed the seasons, moving from the rivers and streams, to the 

coast, and then on to the coastal islands. This tradition is still followed today. 

Our subsistence lifestyle takes us to our camps in numerous locations along the 

mainland and coastal islands. We travel by snowmachine over the ice and by boat 

when the ice is no longer safe. Our primary subsistence foods include: bearded seal, 

walrus, fish (salmon, white fish, trout, and herring) moose, musk-oxen, caribou, 

ducks, geese, ptarmigan, berries (salmon berries, blackberries, blueberries, and 

cranberries), and assorted greens. To preserve the fish and meat, we hang it on drift 

wood racks to dry. Many of our residents store their food in the permafrost to pro-
139

vide natural cold storage. Subsistence foods are also stored in containers of seal oil, 

which is a natural preservative. 

The land under Shishmaref is a fine, silty sand that is highly vulnerable to erosion. Permafrost is prevalent throughout the area and normally is found at a depth 

of 3 feet. The permafrost binds the moist sand together and helps slow the rate of 

erosion. On average, the island’s northern shore has experienced erosion of 3–5 feet 

per year. Higher rates of erosion were experienced during the storms of: November 

9th and 10th, 1973; October 4th, 1997; October 7th, 2001; and most recently November 21st and 22nd, 2003. During these storms, highly susceptible areas had losses 

of as much as 125 feet horizontal distance. 

Every year, until the protective winter pack ice returns, we agonize that the next 

storm will be the one that wipes us out. To date, we have lost numerous storage 

buildings and boats, an ATV, 2 snowmachines (snowmobile), meat-drying racks, and 

buried food. Tragically we have lost 1 home; so far we have been able to move 18 

threatened homes and the National Guard Armory. Moving the structures is a 

labor-intensive process, which includes placing the structure on beams, hooking 

them up with heavy chains, and dragging them to a safer location on the island utilizing available heavy equipment. However, those of us living here know, that it is 

merely a matter of time before we experience greater losses. We are quickly running 

out of space on our ever-shrinking island. 

We experience erosion creeping in from both the southern lagoon side and the 

northern Chukchi Sea side of the island. High tide is 3 feet higher than the normal 

tide. During high tide storms, the wave action can increase an additional 3 feet or 

more above the high tide. The impact to the island is that more of the exposed bluff 

is in direct contact with the water, erosion is accelerated, more of the bluff is undercut, and in many locations the waves crest over the bluff. 

The community of Shishmaref had determined that the threat to life and property 

from reoccurring beachfront erosion required immediate action. The community established the Erosion and Relocation Coalition. The makeup of the Coalition is the 

governing members of the City of Shishmaref and the Native Village of Shishmaref 

(Indian Reorganization Act), the board of the Shishmaref Native Corporation, along 

with representation from the Elder and Youth Councils. The Coalition was formed 

to provide a unified community voice, One People, One Voice, to seek assistance in 

providing immediate erosion protection for the island while we focus our efforts on 

relocation to the mainland. 

Shishmaref is not alone; other Alaska Native Villages are facing a significant 

threat from ongoing global climate changes. Areas that have in the past been protected by our durable permafrost are now at risk. More and more communities are 

reporting problems with persistent erosion and flooding. 

Relocation of the existing community to the mainland 

The situation at Shishmaref is dire, and we believe that a disaster is pending that 

will cause loss of life and property. The rate of erosion and the number of flooding 

events has accelerated. Even though the storms have been moderate in level, the 

damage is more severe in recent years. The community has expressed and reconfirmed its desire to retain community integrity through relocation. Overwhelming 

support was shown through a community wide vote held on July 10, 2002. The community and Coalition would like to stress the immediacy of the problem and continue to push for an expedited relocation of Shishmaref to a safe place on the nearby 

mainland location—Tin Creek. 

The Coalition, with the support of Kawerak, Inc., has to date coordinated and 

communicated with: NRCS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Department 

of Community and Economic Development, the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, the Alaska Division of Emergency Services, the National Park Service, the 

Alaska Native Health Consortium, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land 

Management, the Bering Straits Native Corporation, the Bering Straits Regional 

Housing Authority, the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Tel-Alaska, the Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Housing and Urban Development, the Alaska Federation of Natives, the State House and Senate, and we have 

worked with our Alaska congressional delegation. Our experience has shown that 

there is a lack of continuity between the various federal and State programs and 

agencies. There is an extensive amount of executive branch interpretation. For the 

most part, we have found that none of the agencies have programs that cover the 

full range of our needs. Matching requirements, in many cases are exorbitant, precluding us from qualifying for assistance, as Shishmaref has no viable funding 

source. 

Our community is heavily reliant on subsistence, as are most rural Alaska Native 

Communities. Our diet is based on the animals and plants found nearby. Relocation 
140

of our community to an area away from our home territory would have a devastating impact on how we exist and who we are. Consolidation with another community is not acceptable, as it will cause extensive competition for subsistence foods, 

and depletion of natural resources. Our way of life is centered around subsistence; 

it is the driving force of our existence. This is illustrated by the scattering of Alaska 

Native Villages across the State. 

The no action option for Shishmaref is the annihilation of our community by dissemination. We are a community tied together by family, common goals, values, and 

traditions. We are different from our neighbors. The community of Shishmaref has 

a long and proud history. We are unique, and need to be valued as a national treasure by the people of the United States. We deserve the attention and help of the 

American people and the federal government. 

Our plight has attracted statewide, national, and international attention. To date, 

we have provided information to the following media organizations; regional media, 

AP Wire, Anchorage Daily News, KTUU Channel 2—Anchorage, Alaska Public 

Radio, The New York Times, People Magazine, The New Yorker Magazine, National 

Geographic, The Weather Channel, plus several international media groups from 

Canada, Britain, Japan, France, Germany, Norway, and the calls keep coming. The 

international press is particularly interested to know what the federal government 

is doing to help us. 

Ongoing beach erosion and efforts to minimize its impact 

The use of federal funds places a requirement for advance planning. This requirement precludes an immediate relocation as an intact community. Because of this, 

we anticipate that even an expedited relocation will take years to prepare for. In 

the meantime, we continue to seek assistance to provide shoreline protection for the 

immediate community. Our Strategic Relocation Plan for resettlement is anticipated 

to begin by 2009. 

Kawerak, Inc. our regional non-profit tribal government consortium applied for 

and built on our behalf, a 450 foot armor rock gabion seawall. The funding came 

from the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program (23 U.S.C 200–204), which allows 

100 percent federal funding. Nineteen villages that participate in Kawerak’s program helped to fund our project, with funds identified for their benefit under the 

IRR program. The project was developed to protect the main street in the community and the road to the airport, at their locations closest to the threatened bluff. 

Five barges of rock were brought in from Cape Nome. Kawerak barged in heavy 

equipment and used local labor to build the project. The cost of the project was in 

excess of $2 million. Kawerak attempted to develop a cooperative project with the 

Army Corps of Engineers, but found that the Corps’ programs would have used all 

funds as local match for federally required feasibility studies (a requirement under 

a majority of the Corps’ programs). There was too great a risk that the Corps would 

find that the project was not in the best interest of the federal government. With 

the village’s immediate plight, the decision was made for Kawerak to go forward to 

plan, design, and construct the 450 foot seawall. From the time of this decision, it 

took approximately 2 years to develop and build the project. Kawerak worked closely with Shishmaref, the Corps, the NRCS, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the 

development of the project. 

We have been approved for a Section 14, Emergency Shoreline Protection Project 

with the Army Corps of Engineers. The project is to provide protection for the shoreline in front of our school, approximately 230 feet. The Section 14 has a $1 million 

federal cap and requires a 35 percent match. The State has committed to provide 

the local match for this project. We request that the federal government waive the 

local cost share requirements for Alaska Native Village projects associated with 

flooding and erosion. 

In addition, Shishmaref has worked closely with the State to find additional funding to protect an additional 3,000 feet of the community. The legislature has put 

$2 million into appropriations, but the appropriation is not yet final. These funds 

are intended to provide for local match to Federal programs. However, we continue 

to have serious concerns that these funds would be required to go towards feasibility 

studies instead of construction. We recommend that federal programs designed to 

help communities at risk, must be redesigned by Congress to minimize burdensome 

planning requirements. The emphasis must be placed on funding actual construction. In addition, amendments to legislation must be written that considers the ability of a community to fund the local match, waiving the local match requirement 

should be allowable. 

Disaster programs are designed to do cleanup after the emergency, rather then 

allocating funds for prevention. Both the State and federal agencies have told us 

they couldn’t provide assistance until a ‘‘Disaster Declaration’’ has been made. The 
141

declaration itself requires a dollar value for the damage. In our case, because no 

value is provided for the lost land, and because we have been able to tug homes 

out of harms way, we don’t qualify. Alaska Native Villages don’t have the infrastructure found elsewhere within the United States, therefore there is little value assessed when there are losses within Alaska’s rural communities. 

Lack of funding for immediate and future infrastructure needs 

Shishmaref does not have modern water and sewer. The City hauls water to individual homes where there are interior storage tanks ranging in capacity from 32–

200 gallons. Honey bucket haul systems (septic handling), with a capacity of 200 

gallons, are located in front of every 2–4 homes. The City hauls these containers 

to the landfill 1.5 miles to the west end of the island. In 2002, shortly after the community voted to relocate, we learned that agencies who had previously identified infrastructure projects for Shishmaref would no longer provide us with assistance 

(new clinic, tank farm, water and sewer). We believe the decision made by funding 

agencies to either assist or not, needs to take into consideration the human impacts. 

We had passed an ordinance that required that all new construction must be moveable. Alaska Village Electric (AVEC) had designed our tank farm project so that it 

could be relocated, however, this was not acceptable to the funding agency, the 

Denali Commission. We prefer that the water and sewer project be reserved for our 

relocation site. Haphazard actions and decisions have far reaching negative social 

and economic impacts. 

Currently, there is no infrastructure at the new site. We request assistance to 

build an emergency evacuation building at the Tin Creek Relocation Site. A structure that would be the command center and provide room for evacuation offices, 

clinic, school, and warehouse for emergency supplies, should the island have to be 

evacuated. Continued development of current basic essential health and sanitation 

needs must be done. The community needs a healthy environment. 

We don’t know the actual costs to relocate the village. We believe that much of 

the infrastructure that will be needed for the new location has been deferred from 

our current location. Because of this, the deferred infrastructure development that 

would have been needed on the island (roads, clinic, water and sewer, etc.) should 

be considered in the equation of calculating the costs for the relocation. 

The need for state and federal multi-agency coordination 

The process of relocating an entire community requires extensive interagency cooperation and coordination. There is currently no one agency stepping forward to 

take the lead. To be blunt, no agency’s programs are designed for a project as complex as a full village relocation. Each agency has its realm of responsibility, and 

often there is a gap in responsibility program to program. We have reviewed the 

GAO report (GAO–04–142) completed in December 2003 and encourage you to consider their recommendations. We strongly agree that a coordinated effort to address 

issues caused by erosion and flooding of the threatened Alaska Native Villages is 

necessary. We believe that whichever agency is assigned to lead the effort, must be 

one that has proven itself to be proactive in addressing the needs of Alaska Native 

Villages. 

The situation facing Shishmaref needs to be categorized as an emergency. Overly 

burdensome federal regulations must be eased. Many of the federal requirements 

drive up the costs. We believe that the relocation could be accomplished at a significantly reduced cost if the agencies were allowed to act under emergency exceptions, 

and if the agencies were not required to implement overly burdensome feasibility 

studies and cost benefit analysis. We are not requesting a lessening of the engineering or NEPA requirements but an approach that utilizes common sense. 

The GAO report provides excellent recommendations to address the needs of Alaska Native Villages threatened by erosion and flooding. We urge Congress to take 

action based on their report. However, our situation is urgent, we are unlikely to 

survive until new Statutes, Regulations, or Policies can be developed and implemented. Because of this, we request that Shishmaref be identified as a demonstration project with maximum flexibility authorized, and that it be used to help determine what changes are needed in the Statutes, Regulations, and Policies overall. 

Shishmaref does not have the necessary internal administrative capacity to facilitate such a massive effort without additional funding and technical assistance. 

Kawerak, Inc. provides staff support and facilitation to Shishmaref, but is limited 

primarily to the transportation components of the relocation. Shishmaref requests 

additional assistance from the federal government. 

Conclusion 

Shishmaref is where it is because of what the ocean, rivers, streams, and the land 

provide to us. If the land and water couldn’t sustain us, we would have moved on 
142

long ago. Subsistence is our economic base; why do you work if not to feed your families? Our grocery store is out there, in the water and on the land. 

We are Shishmaref, we are Inupiaq Natives. Subsistence is our way of life, we 

are hunters and we are gatherers. Who and what we are is based on where we live 

and the way we live. We have been here for countless generations. We value our 

way of life, we value the environment as it sustains us; it provides for our very existence. 

I have been very fortunate in my life; I have traveled to many places including 

the home of our federal government, Washington, D.C. I have seen our national 

treasures. Shishmaref too, is a national treasure. But, right now, we are barely 

holding on, as we watch the sea eat away at everything we, and you, have built. 

We are a proud people, it is very difficult for us to ask for your assistance. But 

we do ask for it, for our very existence, for my people, please remember, that we 

are your people too, I am here today to ask for your help. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today, and to share with you 

about my home, Shishmaref.

Shishmaref Measurements 06–14–04

1—Tannery Building 

2—Cottage Building 

3—Charlene Ningealook 

4—Alfred Pootoogooluk 

5—Archie Kiyutelluk 

6—Jim/Janet Barr 

7—Alvin Pootoogooluk Sr. 

8—Bill Jones 

9—East—Bulk Tank 

10—West—Bulk Tank 

11—Margie Ningealook 

12—Winfred Obruk 

13—Nora Kuzuguk 

14—Jenny Kuzuguk 

15—Red School 

16—Blue School 

17—Native Store Warehouse 

18—Lloyd Kiyutelluk 

19—Shelton Kokeok 

20—Signa Kokeok 

21—Nathan Weyiouanna

Current estimated beach line: 

Measurement edge to building ‰

PHomes moved 2002 b
143

SHISHMAREF EROSION MEASUREMENTS 2001–2004

Location Distance from Edge Fall 2001 July 1, 2002 Loss November 11, 2003 Loss November 25, 2003 Loss June 14, 2004 Loss 

Tannery: 

Tannery Bldg ......................................................................... 124 122.5 1.5 118 4.5 118 0 117 1Cottage Industry ................................................................... 64 61 3 57 4 57 0 54 3

Houses: 

Charlene Ningealook ............................................................. 300 300 0 258 42 255 3 250 5Alfred Pootoogooluk ............................................................... 205 205 0 201 4 200 1 195 5Archie Kiyutelluk ................................................................... 200 200 0 188 12 172 16 172 0Jim/Janet Barr ....................................................................... 190 190 0 144 46 144 0 144 0Alvin Pootoogooluk Sr ........................................................... 195 195 0 195 0 195 0 195 0Bill Jones ............................................................................... 90 90 0 72 18 66 6 58 8

Bulk Tanks: 

East ....................................................................................... 65 65 0 57 8 31 26 30 1West ...................................................................................... 69 69 0 61 8 25 36 24 1

Houses: 

Margie Ningealook ................................................................ 105 104 1 86 18 60 26 60 0Winfred Obruk ....................................................................... 105 94 11 67 27 67 0 67 0Nora Kuzuguk ........................................................................ 100 89 11 67 22 58 9 52 6Jenny Kuzuguk ....................................................................... 100 89 11 75 14 66 9 53 13Red School ............................................................................ 72 66 6 42 24 20 22 16 4Blue School ........................................................................... 47.5 38 9.5 17 21 17 0 17 0Native Store: Warehouse ....................................................... 50 50 0 .................... 50 .................... 0 .................... 0

Houses: 

Lloyd Kiyutelluk ..................................................................... 66 66 0 61 5 57 4 43 14Shelton Kokeok ...................................................................... 55 55 0 32 23 31 1 21 10Signa Kokeok ......................................................................... 117 117 0 91 26 90 1 80 10Nathan Weyiouanna .............................................................. 65.5 65.5 0 13 53 5 8 1 4
144

Looking west from center of town

Teachers quarters
145

Center of town beach front

Center of town looking east
146

Homes and drying racks

West end permafrost exposed and melting
147

Final work Kawerak Seawall Project—450 feet

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Rexford. 

STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN REXFORD, TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR, NATIVE VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK 

Mr. REXFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you very much for giving Kaktovik the opportunity 

to give you at least an oral understanding of the things that are 

happening there in Kaktovik as far as erosion is concerned. 
148

I just want to touch on three things that are affecting the people 

of Kaktovik. We are working with the Department of Defense. The 

Air Force is working to protect the landfill that has been capped 

that was used since 1947 by the military, and this is a serious situation that we are finding that needs improvement. We want to continue working with the Air Force on the restoration advisory committee or restoration advisory board with the Air Force. 

The other project that we are working on at this time with the 

North Slope Borough is the FAA master plan on the airport relocation. The location has not been selected yet, but we are just commencing a government-to-government relation with the FAA that 

just started this past week. We also are working on a governmentto-government relation with the Department of Defense to work on 

the various—couple of issues that really affect our people. 

My name is Franklin Rexford. I’m the Tribal Administrator of 

the Native Village of Kaktovik. I was born and raised in Kaktovik. 

I have been outside for higher education. I’ve been working with 

the Native Village since 1970. I’ve grown up and seen that our 

coastline has been affected. 

In 1914 several Canadian archaeologists and anthropologists excavated numerous cabins and graves, and I’m glad that they took 

the ones on the runway. In 1914 there were 76 things that were 

excavated with over 3,000 specimens saved in Canada. I was going 

to say that those at least have been saved—the military, when they 

built a runway, built it on the barrier island there. So we are fortunate the Canadian explorers to excavate and at least save a few 

specimens. 

In conjunction with that, there is an island called Airy (ph) Island. It’s a point where it’s called ‘‘a place to go listen.’’ It’s a local 

treasure or historical treasure and has not been logged under the 

U.S. historical sites and places. We are sitting here and we’re worrying about the artifacts and archaeology and our history on that 

part. 

But one important thing is the landfill. We know that the military in 1947 came to Barter Island and started a landfill. It’s right 

on the bluff. They built about three or four berms to try to prevent—in front of the landfill where the gravel is gathering, it’s 

about half a mile further away from where they wanted the gravel 

to build up because of the landfill that’s there. God knows what’s 

in there; PCB, lead paint, all kinds of stuff that the military 

dumped and it’s right on the bluff. 

So they built these berms, building up gravel at another location. 

What they should have done is put it a little bit further west of 

the landfill and probably could have put a lot more gravel or more 

protection for the landfill. So that’s our concern, because that landfill is about 300 yards from where we land or butcher our whales. 

We’re allowed—we’re a whaling community, and the west side of 

where we butcher our whales there’s all the debris and stuff, garbage collecting along the beach. So that is a very serious situation 

we want to continue working with and maybe provide more funding 

to cap our—dig up all that garbage and get rid of that. It’s just 

going to keep happening. The stuff that they have now is working, 

but it’s being damaged every year. 
149

So the military has spent several hundred, maybe millions of dollars trying to protect that landfill. The airport, you heard—got 

written testimony on the airport from the FAA on the Kaktovik 

hub. The airport is owned by the military. It’s leased by the Borough where they operate and lease the airport, but it’s prone to 

flooding every year now. You can see that every year. But the runway has to be closed down 2 or 3 days of the year because of the 

weather. 

We’ve seen the stuff that they put on the honeycombs and the 

55-gallon barrels, those are rotting out, and they really need to 

close that down. We are working with the FAA to relocate the airport. The villages were moved in 1947 when the military came in 

and in 1964, so we were fortunate we moved in 1964, otherwise our 

houses and infrastructure would probably be falling off like 

Shishmaref or Kivalina or other places. 

So we’re fortunate on that end. But our runway and landfill are 

the two most serious impacts to our village as far as health is concerned. The landfill is very serious and the FAA is working with 

the village to try and find the most economical place to build an 

airport. 

In light of that, I’ll just summarize that there are three islands 

that I am concerned about. I’m concerned about the airport relocation, the landfill with the military, and our local historical treasures that haven’t been made up with historical sites and places like 

Point Hope has. So with that—Senator Murkowski asked for words 

on the Corps of Engineers. 

We are working with the folks there. We are fortunate to work 

with the Department of Defense Restoration Advisory Board, we’ve 

worked with the Corps and the DEC and the people of Kaktovik. 

So we’re watching the cleanup and we’re keeping an eye on the 

landfill and we’re concerned about the runway. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. The water on the 

runway is coming from the ocean, from the Arctic Ocean? 

Mr. REXFORD. Yes. There is a barrier island north of the runway, 

but there’s a channel where with the storm surge we get the strong 

west winds and it floods the east end of the runway. 

Chairman STEVENS. And that’s still under lease from the Air 

Force? 

Mr. REXFORD. Yes. The military people own the runway. 

Chairman STEVENS. Who built the landfill? 

Mr. REXFORD. The military. With the airport, if they’re going to 

relocate, they have to move the landfill 2 miles away from the airport and where they selected is near the beach. 

Chairman STEVENS. The landfill you’re talking about is the one 

that was built by the Air Force? 

Mr. REXFORD. Yes, built by the military and it’s closing. 

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Tom, you’re one of the areas that’s listed 

as being critical by the GAO. 

Mr. TOM. Yes, sir. 

Chairman STEVENS. And are you working with the Corps now on 

a plan? 

Mr. TOM. Yes, sir. 
150

Chairman STEVENS. You indicated you have a background for relocation report. 

Mr. TOM. Yes, we do. 

Chairman STEVENS. You prepared that? 

Mr. TOM. Yes, I did, with the BIA’s help. I knew it had to be 

done to prove the Newtok—the erosion impact. The village vote—

we selected five sites and we discussed them for about 20 years, 

and now we had our last vote back in August 2003. The majority 

voted for Nelson Island. 

Chairman STEVENS. This answers one of the questions that Senator Burns had about the location with regard to the bluff. 

Can you tell us on this where is the site for the new—the new 

site for the village? 

Mr. TOM. It’s on Nelson Island, on the peak of Nelson Island. In 

this map you can’t see it, but it’s—you can see the river here. Nelson is about here (indicating). It’s about 45 miles from this existing 

to Nelson Island. 

Chairman STEVENS. Is the community in agreement about that 

site for relocation? 

Mr. TOM. I didn’t hear you, sir. 

Chairman STEVENS. Has the community agreed to that site for 

relocation? 

Mr. TOM. Yes, we have. We have the vote. The people voted on 

the back of the page and we have all the agencies. We used the 

public-involved survey questionnaires, and we have a—we answered questions on the site that they selected. The majority selected the Nelson Island. And we have the counts on the back of 

the page, too, with the ASAG report. 

Chairman STEVENS. This shows that the 1996 dump site is actually totally inundated now? 

Mr. TOM. It’s gone. It was already impacted. Back in 1996 it was 

the city dump, but we had to relocate it right across the river. 

Chairman STEVENS. You tell me it’s on the other side of the 

Noatak River now? 

Mr. TOM. I think it is, but it’s not the Noatak. We call it the 

Nitlik River. We used a 1964 map. You can see the 1964 map right 

here. There’s the line right there, all the way to the present day. 

In 2003 the land is not being impacted and by 2006 it will be gone. 

It’s going already. We just lost 20 feet this summer. 

Chairman STEVENS. This Nitlik River, is that a river, literally? 

Mr. TOM. Yes, sir, it’s a river. The Nitlik is a river. The Bering 

Sea is this way, the west side. 

Chairman STEVENS. I thought you were on the beach. 

Mr. TOM. No, we’re not on the beach. We’re on the mainland 

close to the inlet. 

Chairman STEVENS. When we take our trip next year, we’ll come 

out and take a look at that. You have indicated that you believe 

the existing land will be impacted—is being impacted now and will 

be gone by 2006, right? 

Mr. TOM. Yes, sir, that’s my observation. 

Chairman STEVENS. The barge landing is right there at the edge 

of the river? 
151

Mr. TOM. Yes, it’s right there. You can see the barge landing 

now. It’s getting impacted right now, and it’s already halfway, and 

this summer we lost 20 feet. 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, that’s a staggering progression that’s 

predicted for your area. 

Mr. TOM. We figure the erosion impact—it will be sooner than 

these figures because of the south wind. 

Chairman STEVENS. How are you going to avoid future erosion 

if you move where you say you want to move? 

Mr. TOM. The mainland is connected to Nelson Island. From here 

it’s pretty close. We have to move this in the wintertime to cross 

the Nitlik River. 

Chairman STEVENS. How many people in your village now? 

Mr. TOM. Right now we have about 430. 

Chairman STEVENS. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Adams, I appreciate your statement, also. I understand your 

circumstance. Kivalina also is one of those listed by the Corps. We 

might revisit those four villages next year on our field trip. We 

have to go back into session and we have conventions, so we can’t 

do it this year. 

Thank you, Ms. Eningowuk. Thank you for coming. As you know, 

I have been to Shishmaref and seen your situation twice. I think 

it’s a staggering problem that you also have. We’ll come to visit you 

also. Meanwhile, we’ll try to see what we can do to get some of the 

changes that you discussed. 

Mr. Rexford, you have a different problem. You have Department 

of Defense assets at your disposal. I think we’ll see if we can’t get 

them to take care of that runway, fix that runway. We do thank 

you very much. 

Any questions, Senators? 

Senator SUNUNU. I have none. 

Senator BURNS. I wrote down a note. If you’re not teaching, Mr. 

Adams, what are you doing? 

Mr. ADAMS. Hunting. 

Senator BURNS. Good choice. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you very much. We do appreciate it 

and I think the very lucid testimony follows up on the study done 

by the GAO. We appreciate you taking the time to come and explain it to us in person. Very good. 

We’ll now turn to a request that was made to us by HESCO to 

have a presentation, while some of the village people are here, of 

the plan that they have undertaken and they have experience with 

here in the States. 

Let me ask Dr. Suhayda to present his testimony now. Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH SUHAYDA, HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS, 

HESCO BASTION USA, LLC, HAMMOND, LOUISIANA 

Dr. SUHAYDA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of 

the committee. 

My name is Joe Suhayda, and I’m pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of HESCO Bastion 

USA, a Louisiana-based manufacturer of a proven erosion-and 

flood-control product. 
152

In my testimony today I will briefly describe house patented 

HESCO Concertainers can provide cost-effective solutions to many 

of your erosion and flooding problems that have been referred to 

previously. I will also describe specific projects for two locations, 

Shishmaref and Point Hope, for which we have developed conceptual plans to provide immediate relief for communities with the 

help of our partners in Alaska on this project, Alaska Erosion Control. 

A little background. I’m a coastal engineer and I have about 30 

years of experience working on coastal issues, particularly coastal 

erosion and flooding in Louisiana. Early in my career I actually did 

work in Alaska at Point Lay, Barrow and Pingok Island. 

I have been working to try to develop solutions to problems that 

are occurring with regard to coastal erosion and flood control that 

address the issues of small communities. In Louisiana we have several situations where we have communities larger than, but not 

dissimilar to many of the village communities in Alaska. The solutions for these types of communities need to be considered to be in 

a different situation than the technology that would be used to, 

say, deal with New Orleans or the Mississippi River or something 

like that. 

Chairman STEVENS. Doctor, we’ve got to give up this room at 12 

noon. Could we ask you to tell us what you’ve got and tell us how 

this might work in Alaska? 

Dr. SUHAYDA. I will do that. What I have here is a miniature 

version of what’s called the Concertainer. If you just take a look 

at it for a minute, what we have is a wire cage or basket. We’ve 

got an elongated rectangle. It has interior partitions of the wire. 

Chairman STEVENS. In actual dimensions, how big is that? 

Dr. SUHAYDA. This could be manufactured from 2-foot squares to 

3 foot, up to 7-foot squares. They can be made in lengths up to 

eight units long. So one of these is referred to as a Concertainer. 

The wire mesh is steel-coated with a zinc-aluminum galvanization 

alloy. The 3-inch mesh has a life of about 40 years. On this particular example I have a polypropylene liner that is placed on the 

periphery of it, and that liner is to allow you to put native local 

materials into these cubes and contain them such that we then 

have a structure that is rigid and heavy enough to hold itself down. 

Chairman STEVENS. Do you have any vertical poles to hold it? 

Dr. SUHAYDA. Not necessary, no, sir. What can be done if it’s a 

situation where the forces are large enough is we can put another 

layer of these units, tie them together. Because of this spiral here 

at the junctions of the cubes, you can connect two units together 

or several units together. We can also put another unit on top of 

this one. 

You can actually build big structures, but they’re integrated 

structures. There’s little disconnects between any of the units. 

We’re looking at different materials now to put in here that 

would be appropriate for the Arctic environment; some of the polypropylene products would not be. When it comes to the advantages 

of this product, it’s shipped in a collapsed form. If you go out to 

a site, what you do—and this can be done by hand—even for a 7-

foot unit, is fold the units out, connect them up, and then either 

with shovels or light equipment, take local materials; it could be 
153

sand, gravel, or rock, stabilized material—or in the extreme, if required, concrete—and fill these baskets up. What you end up with 

then is a structure that’s of the appropriate height and geometry 

to deal with the specific problem that you have. 

Chairman STEVENS. Don’t you have to make the—like your example—don’t you have to make the clip square? 

Dr. SUHAYDA. For this particular example, which is in the United 

Kingdom, and I’d like to go to the slides now. What we have here 

was an erosion problem that is similar to many of the locations in 

the Bering Sea. The solution here was to place the Concertainers 

at the base of the cliff and then build upward. These actually are 

filled with concrete. We’re dealing with the northeast coast of England with a lot of wave action. Other locations would use other 

types of materials. 

If you notice here, there’s this building—they actually built a 

wall up here such that the surface area above the wall could be 

used, that is, you actually reclaim some of that area. 

Could I have the next slide? The major use today of the HESCO 

Concertainer units is in military applications to provide blast and 

munitions protection. The Concertainer was developed——

Chairman STEVENS. We saw those. Let’s get to the flood control. 

Dr. SUHAYDA. Yes, sir. We have in Louisiana some flood control 

applications. I just want to show you that they are, again, applicable not to a Corps of Engineers’ scale of project, but much smaller. 

Here’s a situation where we have a small—what was done was 

a keyway was cut, removed a surface organic material. They laid 

the units out, interconnected them by hand, and then with a small 

Bobcat or front-end loader filled them up with sand. We end up 

with now having raised this about 4 feet at about one-third of the 

cost that it would have been for an alternative design. 

Chairman STEVENS. What’s it cost for 1,000 feet, 8 feet tall? 

Dr. SUHAYDA. I can give you costs for the materials, that is the 

Concertainers. Now, the local fill material, obviously if it’s available freely, that would reduce the cost. Construction labor is also 

an issue. We can give you a cost per foot. It ranges, for a 4-foot 

unit—if you could get away with one 4-foot unit—less than $50 a 

foot. 

If you have to put two or three units together to build it up into 

a bigger pyramid type structure, it will run $100 or maybe a couple 

hundred dollars a foot for a very big unit. Again, this would just 

be materials cost in terms of the Concertainer, not the fill material 

and not the labor. 

An example of a little larger structure 7 feet high, which was two 

4-foot units with a 3-foot unit on top of that was for the east Jefferson hurricane protection levee for the city——

Chairman STEVENS. Have you tried any of that in the Arctic yet? 

Dr. SUHAYDA. Not yet, sir, we’re hoping to do that. 

Next slide. Well, what happened is that we became aware of 

some of the issues and problems in Alaska with regard to coastal 

erosion through a newspaper article. That piqued our interest as 

to whether we could find applications here in Alaska. So at the beginning of this year we had several people come up to Alaska, 

again, it was with Alaska Erosion Control, met with several of the 
154

villages. At that point it’s a fact-finding mission to learn more 

about what the issues are. 

You were gracious enough to meet with a person from HESCO 

and encouraged us to continue. At this point we have met with 

eight of the nine villages that are on the GAO critical communities 

list. 

What I would like to do is talk about our capabilities to support 

two projects this summer with regard to the materials. I’m using 

the examples here of Shishmaref and Point Hope. There could be 

other locations. One is a coastal erosion problem and the other is 

a flood problem. 

In Shishmaref there’s about a 2,000-foot segment there that 

needs to be addressed. What we can do is make materials available 

at Shishmaref by the end of the month that should be sufficient to 

support any design that would be done, such that if the design engineering and construction capabilities are sufficient at the site, we 

could actually get something done before the winter freeze-up occurs. 

Our role in this is to provide the materials, provide support with 

regard to the engineering techniques and construction techniques, 

but to not do either the engineering or the construction. Obviously, 

the expertise is here in the State. We can make the material available to allow a period of about 2 to 3 months for construction and 

engineering. That’s about the best we can do for this year. 

Next slide. This is Point Hope. You’ve got a flooding problem 

along with others. There are, as I have shown you before, designs 

and configurations that act very effectively as flood barriers that 

can be as high as 4 feet or 7 feet that are relatively easy to construct. The engineering required for that situation would be much 

less than it would be for Shishmaref. I think, again, we could provide enough material to support some type of flood-abatement 

project given that the engineering and construction, of course, 

would be needed. 

Chairman STEVENS. What would be the estimate of the cost of 

each of those projects? 

Dr. SUHAYDA. I can give you a materials cost. I figured it out. 

As I said, we’re talking about somewhere between $50 for a single 

unit up to maybe a couple hundred dollars a foot if you wanted to 

put more Concertainers. If you wanted to go to a very elaborate 

structure obviously with more components, more Concertainers, 

and the per foot cost is just going to be proportional to how many 

units we use. 

I’d like to just sum up, if I could. What we were hoping to do 

is provide you with a way of extending the impact of any funding 

that’s available for projects. For example, if you have $1 million 

and a traditional design would allow you to build 300 feet, we’re 

hoping to provide you with options to build 600 feet or 900 feet that 

would meet the same performance and engineering type theory of 

the original design. We can do that because there are some inherent advantages to this structure. 

[The statement follows:]
155

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH SUHAYDA

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, Governor Murkowski and Members of the 

Committee, my name is Joseph Suhayda. I am pleased to have the opportunity to 

testify before you today on behalf of HESCO Bastion USA, LLC, a Louisiana based 

manufacturer of a proven erosion control product. 

In my testimony today I will briefly describe how patented HESCO 

Concertainers® can provide cost effective solutions to many of the erosion and flooding problems that have been previously described. I will also describe specific 

projects for two locations, Shishmaref and Point Hope, for which we have developed 

conceptual plans to provide immediate relief for communities with the help of our 

partners in Alaska, Alaska Erosion Control, LLC. 

I am a coastal engineer and have had over 30 years experience dealing with coastal issues, particularly coastal erosion and flooding in Louisiana. Early in my career 

I did research on the North Slope of Alaska; at Point Lay, Barrow and Pingok Island. Louisiana, like Alaska, has been experiencing severe coastal erosion and flooding. For the last thirty years I have been working to develop solutions to these problems at Louisiana State University and as a consultant to several federal and state 

agencies. 

The primary means for addressing coastal wetland loss problems in Louisiana is 

the Coastal Wetland Planning Protection and Restoration Act, a shared federal and 

state program. Working with CWPPRA, or the Breaux Act as it is referred to in 

Louisiana, I have developed an appreciation for the importance of developing cost 

effective solutions for the erosion problems of small communities. I became involved 

with HESCO because it presented the first opportunity I was aware of to develop 

viable cost effective solutions to erosion and flooding problems not only in Louisiana 

but nationwide as well. 

HESCO AND HESCO PRODUCTS

To draw your attention to the unique and often hard to describe HESCO system, 

I have brought a miniature of one of the HESCO Concertainers®. The 

Concertainer® is a rectangular or cubic basket composed of wire and lined with a 

geotextile fabric. The panels are heavily galvanized wire mesh with a zinc-aluminum alloy and have a functional life of 38 years. The geotextile fabric is typically 

polypropylene, however, it can be any of a variety of materials suited to the particular environment of the project site. 

The units are shipped to the project site in a folded configuration and then quickly unfolded along the prepared route of the structure. The Concertainers® are filled 

with native materials using light construction equipment or even shovels. Units of 

various sizes are stacked in order to achieve an overall structure for the desired 

width and height. A typical coastal erosion prevention structure is shown in Figure 

1. 

The HESCO Concertainer® was invented in England as an erosion and flood control product. The first erosion project done by HESCO UK was installed in 1989 and 

HESCO UK has established a reputation over the last 15 years of successfully preventing land erosion and coastal flooding worldwide. 

HESCO Concertainers® are being used extensively by the U.S. Military in Iraq 

and all over the globe to build structures which protect our troops, as shown in Figure 2. As you have probably seen on the news, the military application is to build 

blast and munitions absorbent walls that provide troop protection. The photo in Figure 2 was taken earlier this year in Iraq. This security application has become the 

main market for the HESCO product. 

Although HESCO UK has been working successfully with the United States military, the product has not seen much use as it was originally designed: erosion or 

flood control. To support this use, HESCO UK licensed the product to be manufactured in the United States. HESCO Bastion USA, LLC was opened on February 4, 

2003 in Hammond, Louisiana. Because of the enormous erosion and flooding problems that occur in that region, HESCO USA has gained valuable experience in responding to the needs in the Gulf Coast states. Our interest and scope of capabilities has now expanded from Louisiana to Florida and California, and now with the 

help of Alaska Erosion Control, here in Alaska. 

The Concertainers® have been used in several locations in Louisiana. Figure 3 

shows the placement of two 4 foot high units in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The 

Concertainers® replaced a failed sand bag structure and completed a critical component of the hurricane protection levee system surrounding the city of New Orleans. 
156

Figure 4 shows the addition of Concertainers® to the top of the South Lafourche 

levee system in Raceland, Louisiana. This addition provided a cost effective incremental improvement to the existing levee system that was in need of being raised, 

but due to the costs associated with a prior product, improvements had been delayed. HESCO was able to come in and complete the project at a fraction of the 

original project’s estimated cost. HESCO has been recently tested as a rapid response flood barrier by The Army Corps of Engineers at their Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, MS. After a month-long series of lab and field 

tests, indications are that HESCO passed all the tests, but we are awaiting the official results from the Corps. 

The product is unique in that it has an almost universal application due to the 

flexibility of the design and its ability to adapt to local needs and conditions. Examples of this universality include successfully completed projects ranging from flood 

control, bank stabilization, mudslide prevention and port security. Based upon this 

proven record of success I believe that the Concertainer® can provide a solution to 

many of the erosion and flooding problems occurring in Alaska. 

HESCO ALASKA

HESCO learned of the erosion and flooding problems in Alaska in September 

2003, and with Alaska Erosion Control, conducted several reconnaissance visits to 

Alaskan villages in 2003 and 2004. After these initial visits, we met with you, 

Chairman Stevens, to discuss our findings and solicit your advice as to how to best 

make HESCO available in Alaska. 

At your urging, Mr. Chairman, HESCO and Alaska Erosion Control have since 

visited eight of the nine critical villages in the December 2003 GAO report. We can 

now offer our assessment of what we can do to immediately help address the problems. 

Based on these visits and after assessing the viability of utilizing HESCO in the 

eight villages, we have decided in this presentation to focus on two of the villages 

where we feel we can be most helpful in the immediate future. These two sites reflect the two general types of problems being faced by many communities; flooding 

and erosion. 

The first location we address is Shishmaref. Figure 4 shows the nature of the 

problem. The coast is eroding at a severe rate and Shishmaref needs erosion control 

to save over about 2,300 feet of shoreline. Our preliminary design is shown in panel 

B and consists of several Concertainers® stacked into an erosion barrier that would 

armor the shoreface. The placement and height of the wall will be determined in 

the final design. Again, the advantage of HESCO is that the design utilizes local 

materials and equipment. 

The second location we are to address is Point Hope. Figure 5 shows the nature 

of the problem. The community is located on a low lying barrier island and is subject to periodic flooding from the sea. Point Hope needs a flood protection system. 

Our conceptual design would consist of several Concertainer® units stacked into a 

flood barrier that would surround any of the threatened areas. The placement and 

height of the wall will be determined in the final design. Again, the design takes 

advantage of local materials and equipment. We hope to install it this year, weather 

and paperwork permitting. 

These projects represent only two of many Alaskan projects we believe can be addressed with HESCO products. Not all of the problems faced by the Native Alaska 

Villages will be solved using HESCO. However, we believe we can provide a cost 

effective option to solve many of the critical erosion and flooding problems. 

SUMMARY

There are numerous advantages of HESCO products. First, is the simplicity of installing the product. Second is the use of indigenous materials to fill the 

Concertainers® and the use of local machinery and labor to provide this service. The 

third advantage is the cost advantage that HESCO’s product provides is the use of 

light construction equipment. With proper training ‘‘tech transfer’’ can occur allowing local project planners and engineers to design solutions, and local labor to conduct installation and maintenance of future projects. HESCO and Alaska Erosion 

Control would continue to provide technical support. 

HESCO Concertainers® are a cost effective option to address many of the erosion 

problems that have been discussed during these hearings. Our approach is to utilize 

local resources including local people, equipment and materials. Based upon this approach, we believe we have the best method to maximize the chance of completing 

at least one of the two projects, if not both, discussed previously during this season. 
157

Thank you again Senator Stevens for inviting me to testify here today. I hope to 

answer any questions you may have.

Chairman STEVENS. Senators, do you have any questions? 

Senator SUNUNU. The existence of that polypropylene shell, 

doesn’t that increase the force of a tide or any current on the structure? 

Dr. SUHAYDA. Well, it doesn’t increase it. It does prevent or control the movement of the sediment. We don’t want fine sand, for 

example, to leach out. That’s why we need something that contains 

fine material. Obviously, the measurement size could be adjusted. 

It doesn’t really influence the magnitude of the forces. 

Senator BURNS. That’s the way we build some corner posts in 

Montana for our fences. 

Dr. SUHAYDA. I’d just like to conclude by thanking you very much 

for this opportunity to testify. If there are any more questions, I 

would be glad to take them. 

Chairman STEVENS. Would you consider those temporary barriers or permanent barriers? 

Dr. SUHAYDA. No, it’s designed to be permanent. I mean, this is 

not something that you would plan to remove. Now, it’s not impossible to remove them. In fact, in certain cases they have been removed. But, no, this is a permanent structure. 

Chairman STEVENS. Do you think that you could prevent the intrusion of the water on the airport there at Point Hope? Have you 

visited there? 

Dr. SUHAYDA. I’m telling you that we’ve done projects where that 

has been engineered. We had a recent test by the Corps of Engineers exactly for that purpose, to look at the ability of one 4-foot 

high unit to resist flood waters. I don’t want to preempt the Corps’ 

final report, but in my opinion it passed all those tests. So I believe, yes, sir, we’ve got a product that if properly designed and 

constructed would do that. 

ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

Chairman STEVENS. The committee has received statements from 

the Northwest Arctic Borough and Matanuska-Susitna Borough 

which will be placed in the record at this point. 

[The statements follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS K. BOLEN, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR, 

NORTHWEST ARCTIC BOROUGH

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic today. Shoreline 

erosion is a fact of life that many Alaskans have lived with, day in and day out, 

for many years. In northwest Alaska, we have several communities that suffer the 

impacts of shoreline erosion, but none quite so perilously as the community of 

Kivalina. 

Northwest Arctic Borough is the regional (like a county) form of government serving an area the size of the state of Indiana. Borough government has been working 

with the people of Kivalina for the past 15 years on the issue of planning the relocation of this coastal community which has been continuously threatened by shoreline 

erosion and inundation by water and ice. The study efforts have been a cooperative 

venture by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Northwest Arctic Borough, the 

City of Kivalina, and the Native Village of Kivalina. The cost of this study and planning work has been shared equally by the federal government and the local partners. 

Although Kivalina’s location was probably a great choice of a place to put a subsistence fishing, whaling, or seal hunting camp, many years ago, it is agreed by all 
158

who have seen Kivalina first hand that it is not a suitable site for a modern community in need of room to grow and lacking the infrastructure necessary to bring it 

into the 21st century. Kivalina residents dwell on a narrow barrier island facing the 

Chukchi Sea to the west and the Kivalina Lagoon to the east. Erosion and flooding 

occur from both directions under differing weather conditions. Kivalina residents 

haul water to their homes in plastic buckets and haul sewage and other wastes from 

their homes in other plastic buckets. These conditions continue today because state 

and federal funding agencies are prohibited from funding infrastructure improvements due to the threat of erosion and inundation. 

Residents of Kivalina cannot evacuate their barrier island easily or quickly. To 

do so would require boarding many small planes, or readying and launching many 

small boats. Neither of these options are usually available during the severe storm 

conditions which would usually bring high water. Kivalina is a catastrophe waiting 

to happen. As the Emergency Manager for Northwest Arctic Borough, I have constant concerns for the welfare of Kivalina residents. 

This community is in dire need of an affordable alternate site, and of critical importance initially is a means of access to an alternate site. To date, except for the 

ice trails of winter, there has never been any access to alternate sites. Kivalina residents have never had Spring, Summer, or Fall access to any alternative site which 

could stimulate organized or individual relocation. It is therefore no small wonder 

that after 15 years of study, planning, and designing, that Kivalina residents are 

still trapped on their barrier island. 

The Northwest Arctic Borough has always supported Kivalina’s desire to relocate, 

and continues to work to bring about successful relocation. The Borough and 

Kivalina residents are grateful to Senator Stevens and his congressional allies for 

making study money available to investigate this issue. We urge that more funding 

is needed to address making relocation happen for Alaskan residents, like those in 

Kivalina, who find themselves socially, economically, physically, and spiritually 

pinned down by the forces of Mother Nature. As Moses said to the Pharaoh, ‘‘let 

my people go.’’ We must find a way to build access to the promised land and set 

Kivalina residents free. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN DUFFY, BOROUGH MANAGER, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA

BOROUGH

I am writing to you today to present the testimony of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough regarding erosion problems. 

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough encompasses an area approximately the size of 

the state of Pennsylvania. The Borough has one of the fastest growing populations 

in the United States, increasing from 44,260 in 1986 to over 66,000 in 2004, and 

is ranked as the 47th fastest growing ‘‘county’’ in the country. The Borough has 

about 75 miles of saltwater shore and over 10,000 miles of inland shore line. 

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is characterized by high mountains dropping to 

fertile valleys, where most residents live. Thousands of streams and dozens of rivers 

course through the Borough providing some of the most important habitat and recreational areas in the state. There are currently over 3,500 individual parcels designated as creek or river frontage. 

An additional 9,700 parcels are listed as lake frontage. Many of these parcels are 

also affected by erosion issues. Unfortunately these numbers underestimate the risk 

because millions of acres containing thousands of miles of rivers and creeks remain 

in large ownership blocks. These lands are being subdivided and developed at an 

ever increasing rate. 

The borough suffers from repetitive and substantial flooding which is causing 

more damage and risk to public health and property as our population and development density increases. While the history of flooding in the Borough is incomplete 

due to the remote nature of the area, many damaging floods have occurred in just 

the last fifty years (1955, 1959, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1986, 1992, and 1995). It 

is important to note that much of the damage to property and structures caused by 

these flood events resulted from erosion rather than high water levels. In addition, 

the damage from erosion occurs much more frequently than flood damage. 

Due to the nature of the rivers and streams in our Borough the risk from erosion 

and flooding is not described or predicted through the traditional concept of the 100 

year flood plain study. To prevent this damage and loss the Borough needs better 

tools to predict these erosion risks. 

One of the biggest obstacles to preventing damage along our waterways is the fact 

that many of the rivers and streams in the Borough are braided and meandering, 

or steep and fast moving. Both types of watercourses travel predominantly through 
159

alluvial and glacially deposited soils and gravel which are easily displaced even by 

non-floodwater velocities. This characteristic results in frequent and very prevalent 

erosion and undercutting as the streams change course and cut new channels. The 

damage can be quite dramatic with undercut bluffs dropping hundreds of feet and 

shore lands cutting more than sixty feet per day into uplands along thousands of 

feet of the shore. 

This characteristic of our watercourses is common to braided and meandering 

streams and is not necessarily a function of the flood stage. The erosion and undercutting occurs more frequently than flooding and can be more devastating than 

flooding because the dramatic change in topography often makes reconstruction or 

redevelopment impossible. Several blocks of the original town site of Talkeetna are 

now lost to the waters of the Susitna River. Whole blocks of subdivisions have similarly been eroded into the Matanuska River. Homes have fallen into the Matanuska 

River as recently as 1992. Some homes and buildings have been relocated as the 

river or stream advanced. The Borough has condemned some structures to facilitate 

removal. Many cabins and structures have fallen into numerous other streams and 

rivers over the years. Currently major roads such as the Glenn Highway and Parks 

Highway, as well as the Alaska Railroad and major electrical utility lines, are continually threatened by undercutting from these and other watercourses. 

Structural mitigation measures such as shore armor, levies and dikes are used 

to reduce damage. The borough and the state have repeatedly been forced to conduct 

emergency stopgap efforts to temporarily stave off quickly developing imminent 

threats to homes and roads. Unfortunately, the shear volume and relentless actions 

of the water flow defeats these structures in a remarkably short time unless they 

are frequently repaired at great expense. 

The constantly changing course of the streams makes it impossible to map the 

floodway with any predictive certainty, rendering Flood Insurance Rate Maps almost useless. The meandering characteristics of the alluvial rivers also quickly outdate any detailed mapping effort using conventional backwater analysis. Inaccurate 

Flood Insurance Rate Maps result in inaccurate decisions about flood and erosion 

risk for planners and developers. Uncertainty makes it more difficult to adopt and 

implement meaningful land use and development plans and regulations. 

Viewing the area likely to be traversed by the meandering river as a ‘‘Meander 

Belt’’ allows a more meaningful basis to develop hazard analysis and mitigation 

plans. The meander belt analysis requires adequate tools for recognizing both the 

vertical and horizontal boundaries of areas likely to be impacted by water volume, 

water velocity, erosion and sediment deposition over a specified time frame. Using 

this information, local, state and federal government officials can make the most accurate and cost effective decisions for preventing loss of property and risk to public 

safety. High risk areas can be more easily avoided and development can be more 

efficiently designed to maximize profit, as well as, public value, in the feasible area. 

The borough lacks methodology, resources and information for developing the necessary new models to predict and assess risk of riverine meander belts. Even basic 

historic water volume and flow data does not exist for many of our water courses. 

Watershed data and traditional flood hazard data is incomplete or outdated, where 

it does exist. 

Having wrestled with the problem of erosion for many years we have considered 

several alternatives to address the problem. The damage arising from the unusual 

circumstances not routinely encountered in flood situations elsewhere requires rejection of traditional 100 year flood plain concepts. It is our opinion that a new concept 

is needed to arrive at realistic mitigation measures. 

The Borough therefore respectfully requests that Congress authorize the development of methodology to predict the 30, 60, and 100 year erosion meander belts with 

associated flood hazard areas of the water courses in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, particularly in the areas where development pressure is highest, and to revise 

National Flood Insurance Rate Map panels accordingly. To this end, we request the 

creation of a demonstration project that would result in the following products: completion of a comprehensive watershed study of the Borough; establishment of a comprehensive network of flow meters in the more significant streams and rivers; study 

of those watercourses resulting in a new flood and erosion hazard study for the Borough; identification of 30, 60, and 100 year erosion meander belts; and identification 

of best management practices and guidelines to protect property from erosion. 

We believe that the following watercourses should be included within the demonstration project: Susitna River, Matanuska River, Knik River, Little Susitna 

River, Willow Creek, Deshka River (Kroto Creek), Kahiltna River, Skwenta River, 

Yentna River, Alexander Creek, Talkeetna River, and Chulitna River. 

With the information obtained through this demonstration project, the Borough 

will have much better tools available to protect property and the safety, health and 
160

welfare of its residents. Moreover, the information will be readily transferable to 

other communities and municipalities in Alaska. 

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough thanks the Committee for its attention to this 

serious matter. If there is more information that we may provide, please do not hesitate to contact me at (907) 745–9689.

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Chairman STEVENS. Okay. Thanks very much. We appreciate you 

coming up. 

This will conclude our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., Wednesday, June 30, the hearings 

were concluded, and the committee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

Æ