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

38–848 PDF 2008

S. Hrg. 110–486 

THE STATE AND FEDERAL RESPONSE TO STORM 

DAMAGE AND EROSION IN ALASKA’S COASTAL 

VILLAGES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 11, 2007 

FIELD HEARING IN ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

DONNY WILLIAMS, Staff Director 

APRILLE RAABE, Minority Staff Director 

AMANDA FOX, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Landrieu .............................................................................................. 1 

Senator Stevens ................................................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2007 

Brigadier General John W. Peabody, Commander and Division Engineer, 

Pacific Ocean Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .................................... 3 

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

Management, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs of the State 

of Alaska ............................................................................................................... 5 

Susan K. Reinertson, Regional Administrator, FEMA Region X, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ... 7 

Colleen E. Swan, Tribal Adminstrator, Native Village of Kivalina, Alaska ....... 25 

Stanley Tom, Tribal Administrator of the Newtok Traditional Council, Native 

Village of Newtok, Alaska ................................................................................... 29 

Tony A. Weyiouanna, Sr., Kawerak Transportation Planner and Technical 

Staff Assistant to the Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition, 

Shishmaref, Alaska .............................................................................................. 31 

Steve Ivanoff, Village Transportation Planner, Unalakleet, Alaska ................... 33 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Ivanoff, Steve: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 135 

Madden, John W.: 

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

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

Peabody, Brigadier General John W.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Reinertson, Susan K.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Swan, Colleen E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Tom, Stanley: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 68 

Weyiouanna, Tony A., Sr.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 86 

(1) 

THE STATE AND FEDERAL RESPONSE TO 

STORM DAMAGE AND EROSION IN ALASKA’S 

COASTAL VILLAGES 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2007 

U.S. SENATE,

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER RECOVERY,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Anchorage, Alaska 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in Z.J. 

Loussac Public Library, Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Mary Landrieu, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Landrieu and Stevens. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANDRIEU 

Senator LANDRIEU. I would like to call the Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery to order. I thank our panelists for being available 

and thank all of you for your interest and work on this important 

subject. 

I am going to turn the gavel over to Senator Stevens, who needs 

no introduction, of course, here in Anchorage, Alaska. He is not 

only a giant among Senators, a veteran, and a hero, but a tireless 

advocate for the interest of the citizens of this State. 

I have been pleased to work with him, to battle with him on behalf of the citizens throughout all parts of Alaska. And it is a great 

privilege for me, really, to be with him in his home State. 

He has stood by the side of the people of New Orleans and Louisiana as we tried to rebuild out of the rubble of two of the worst 

storms to ever hit the continental United States, Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, which decimated large swaths of the Gulf Coast 

States just 2 years ago. 

So again, it is a pleasure for me to be here. We had a remarkable 

visit yesterday and I am looking forward to the testimony today. 

At this time, I will turn the gavel and microphone over to Senator 

Stevens. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS 

Senator STEVENS [presiding]. Thank you, very much, Senator 

Landrieu. You are very generous. I am delighted that you have 

scheduled this hearing. 

Yesterday I attended a portion of the hearing of the State legislature here on some of the State functions regarding the disaster 

areas that we are concerned with here this morning. And for the 

2 

interest of everybody, we did go to Shishmaref yesterday and had 

a very short but meaningful visit there. I am delighted that Senator Landrieu was willing to go there to see the devastation that 

has been caused along our shore. 

It is an important thing for us to try and deal with this now. I 

want to emphasize, of course, that I am sure Alaskans know that 

no State is more affected by global climate change than ours. We 

have rising temperatures. The permafrost is melting. The trees are 

growing further up north. The sea ice is melting. And the storms, 

in particular, have increased in their severity and their number. 

I hope that we are going to be able to hear today some of the 

concepts that are involved in Federal responsibilities with regard 

to these villages. 

As you all know, in 2003, at our request, the GAO examined and 

produced a report concerning the flooding and erosion of Alaskan 

Native villages. They found that 184 of the 213 at that time, 86 

percent of the villages were affected. Shishmaref, Kivalina, and 

Newtok were those who had suffered the worst. 

We are in the process still of dealing with the Federal a gencies, 

particularly those who are here today, to determine what can be 

done on the Federal level to deal with these villages and the results of the storms so far. And really, we went yesterday, to see 

how effective some of the steps we have taken to try and protect 

the villages have been. And clearly, we have to find a way to work 

together if we are going to solve this problem. 

So I am delighted, Senator, that you are willing to do this, make 

this trip, to listen to this, and conduct this hearing. It is a most 

important thing for us, I think, to pursue. 

I have been to New Orleans 2 days after the Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita disasters. I served in World War II and saw a lot of devastation, but I have never seen devastation in the United States 

like I saw there. At least 20 square miles of homes were totally 

flattened. We had a real emergency and I do believe that Senator 

Landrieu and her colleagues, moved forward to try and get the 

massive efforts of the Federal Government coordinated and effective. 

We have a similar situation, only it is spread along the coastline, 

half of the coastline of the United States. It is more difficult to deal 

with. But I know that the experience that Senator Landrieu has 

had with regard to that major disaster is going to help us in terms 

of trying to deal with those that we are facing now and may face 

in the future. 

So let me, if I can, at your suggestion, introduce to you the people who are going to testify today. 

First, we are going to hear from Brigadier General John Peabody, who is the Commander and the Division Engineer for the Pacific Ocean Division of the Corps of Engineers. He is responsible for 

engineering design, construction, and real estate management of 

all of the military establishments in the Pacific Region, as well as 

the Corps of Engineers water resource development and regulatory 

programs for Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and Northern Marianas. He has a vast area, so we are happy to have you 

with us today. 

3 

1The prepared statement of General Peabody appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

Is the time limit 7 minutes for statements? We would like to see 

you keep your statements as short of possible, so we can go into 

some questions. The Chairman says 5 minutes. 

So General, let’s hear from you first. 

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN W. PEABODY,1

COMMANDER AND DIVISION ENGINEER, PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

General PEABODY. OK, sir. Thank you, very much. 

Madam Chairman, Senator Stevens, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss coastal storm damage 

and related issues in Alaska. 

I am General John Peabody, Commander of the Corps of Engineers Pacific Ocean Division, and I will provide a brief overview of 

the Pacific Ocean Division, review our Corps of Engineers’ Authorities and programs, and highlight some of the challenges regarding 

coastal erosion affecting Alaskan communities. 

The Pacific Ocean Division is headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. We have four district offices in Hawaii, Alaska, Japan, and 

South Korea. All of our districts have important military construction missions. In addition, the 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 risks, and ecosystem restoration. 

It is through our Alaska District civil works program that we are 

involved in addressing erosion problems that affect Alaskan communities. 

The Corps of Engineers has several civil works authorities to address flooding and erosion problems. They include specific Congressional authorizations, the Continuing Authorities Program, the 

Planning Assistance to States Program, the Tribal Partnership Program, the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Authority, and 

Alaska-specific authorizations such as Section 117 of Public Law 

108–447 of the Fiscal Year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act. 

This relates to Alaska flood, erosion, and ice damage. Each of these 

authorities has different implementing rules and limitations. 

In addressing erosion problems, the Corps works closely with 

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

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

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

I would like to highlight a few of the Alaska-specific coastal erosion authorities. 

A recent authority that has been useful in addressing Alaska 

coastal erosion problems is Section 117 of the Fiscal Year 2005 Appropriations Act, which authorizes the Secretary of the Army to 

‘‘carry out, at full Federal expense, structural and non-structural 

projects for storm damage prevention and reduction, coastal eroVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:31 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 038848 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38848.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
4 

sion, and ice and glacial damage in Alaska, including relocation of 

affected communities and construction of replacement facilities.’’ 

The Corps of Engineers has demonstrated some success with the 

Section 117 authority as implemented under the Alaska Coastal 

Erosion program. In June 2007, with funding provided by Congress, the Alaska District awarded a $6.5 million construction contract to build approximately 625 linear feet of rock revetment to 

protect infrastructure at Shishmaref. The interim erosion protection at Shishmaref has an estimated project life of approximately 

15 years, which will allow the community sufficient time to develop 

and implement alternative plans. An additional 2,500 feet at an estimated cost of $25 million is required to complete the interim protection for the entire community. 

Additionally, the Alaska District executed a Project Cooperation 

Agreement with the City of Unalakleet in January 2007 for erosion 

protection, subject to the availability of funds. Finally, the Alaksa 

District is also currently negotiating a Project Cooperation Agreement with the city of Kivalina for erosion protection. 

In addition, under the Alaska Tribal Partnership Program, the 

Alaska District is preparing the Alaska Baseline Erosion Study. 

This will provide a systems approach for coordinating, planning, 

and providing an overall assessment to help prioritize shoreline 

erosion management efforts in Alaska. To date, the study has identified 165 communities that are experiencing erosion problems. The 

Alaska District has also initiated the Alaska Erosion Data Collection study under this program. 

As noted in the June 2004 General Account Office report on Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion, it is often difficult for the majority of Alaska’s small and remote communities to 

finance and meet the multiple criteria required for Federal participation in solutions. The remoteness of many of the areas, severe 

weather conditions, and the subsistence economies of the communities are major contributing factors to this limitation. 

Perhaps the biggest challenges are the costs and risks associated 

with implementing erosion control solutions in these usually remote communities. These include high mobilization costs, limited 

construction season, and the difficulty and expense of transporting 

and obtaining adequate rock and other construction materials. In 

April 2006, the Corps completed the Alaska Village Erosion Technical Analysis Report—also known as the AVETA study—which estimated costs for providing erosion protection for seven villages. 

In addition, in Alaska we lack adequate scientific data on the factors that contribute to coastal erosion such as wave, wind, tide, 

current, storm surge, and ice pack. The Alaska Erosion Data Collection study should help provide some of this important information. 

The risks associated with coastal erosion challenges in Alaska 

are great. Risk considerations include determining what level of 

protection from erosion and flooding are acceptable, deciding 

whether to relocate or remain, and balancing the costs, social, cultural, and environmental impacts. 

In summary, the Corps of Engineers has the technical expertise 

to address solutions based on a systems approach and to communicate and assist with risk informed decisionmaking associated 

5 

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

with the complex storm damage and erosion problems in Alaska’s 

coastal villages. 

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

State, and local entities to assist in recommending and implementing solutions for the coastal erosion challenges faced by the 

Alaskan communities. 

Madam Chairman and Senator Stevens, I am honored to appear 

before the Subcommittee today and thank you for the opportunity. 

I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you very much. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chairman, now we are going to hear from John Madden, 

who is the Director of the Division of Homeland Security and 

Emergency Management for the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs of the State of Alaska. He has extensive experience 

in the State, and he has also had a distinguished career with seven 

Federal agencies. 

Thank you, Mr. Madden, for being with us. We are pleased to 

have your statement. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. MADDEN,1 DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS OF THE 

STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. MADDEN. Thank you, Senator Stevens and Madam Chairman, for inviting me to present testimony on the State response to 

storm damage and erosion in Alaska’s coastal villages. 

In the past 30 years, Alaska has declared 226 State disasters. Of 

these, 20 were further declared Federal disasters by the President. 

The disasters included floods, storm surges, extreme freezing, high 

winds, wildfires, structure fires, earthquakes, volcanoes, and other 

damage to critical infrastructure. About $436 million in State and 

Federal funds have been spent to recover from these Alaskan disasters. More than half of these disasters and two-thirds of the funds 

were for recovery from floods, storm surges, and erosion disasters. 

Since 1978, the State of Alaska has declared 23 disasters due to 

damage from sea storms that have hit every coastal area from 

Metlakatla, throughout the Southeast, the Gulf of Alaska, the 

Aleutians, and the full extent of our western and northern coasts, 

a distance greater than the entire U.S. coast from Maine to Mexico 

and California to Canada. 

According to the National Weather Service, an average of five 

storms of hurricane force approach Alaska each year from the Pacific and Arctic Oceans, and the Bering and Chukchi Seas. In recent years, the ice advances southward from the Arctic later and 

slower. This is an extremely important factor in the storms’ effects 

on coastal communities. Shore fast ice greatly reduces the wave 

erosion action of the storms. 

Both Alaskan and Federal statutes enable and authorize immediate actions and immediate funding when disasters are imminent, 

meaning likely to occur at any moment. When there is a question 

of safety of life, there is no bureaucracy, only swift and hopefully 

6 

effective action. But where a possibility exists for a future disaster, 

but at an uncertain time, neither the Alaska Disaster Relief Act 

nor the Federal Stafford Act authorizes funds to prevent the disasters, no matter how certain the odds. Until the disaster can be 

clearly seen, disaster relief funds—State or Federal—cannot be 

used. 

In fiscal year 2007, Congress appropriated $100 million for the 

Pre-Disaster Mitigation program for the entire Nation. Under this 

program, a project is deemed ineligible if another Federal agency 

has primary authority, even if that agency has no funds appropriated for that purpose. 

FEMA administers the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for 

long-term projects following a major disaster declaration. The purpose is to reduce the loss of life and property in future disasters 

by funding mitigation measures during the recovery phase. Projects 

must provide a long-term solution and the potential savings must 

be more than the cost of implementing the project. Allocations are 

calculated as a percentage of the costs of recent disasters. These 

funds are limited and are the only means to address the full range 

of hazards facing the State, including earthquakes, fires, floodings, 

and coastal storms. 

Since 1997, Alaska has received about $16 million to mitigate the 

potential for damage from all future disasters, far less than the 

cost of fully mitigating just a single community against coastal erosion. 

In July 2006, I testified before the Senate Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation Committee and recommended that unmanned 

aerial systems based in Alaska would greatly improve science, safety, and security. With these communities at increasing risk, the 

need is even stronger for these unmanned aerial systems in Alaska 

to help improve weather and climate predictions that are required 

for developing sound public policy. 

Based on these observations, I do recommend the deployment 

and basing of unmanned aerial systems in Alaska for weather observations, coastline documentation, and immediate damage assessment following events. I recommend increased technology and 

staffing resources by the National Weather Service, particularly 

here in Alaska, to work with the State on improving their climate 

models and integrating their weather warnings with the emergency 

preparedness and response. 

Last, I recommend increased funding for the Hazard Mitigation 

Grant Program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and 

greater latitude on their use for coastal erosion. 

In conclusion, Alaska faces a spectrum of risks, threats, and hazards disproportionate to our population, a point not adequately 

measured or fully appreciated in the Federal grants process. The 

problems of coastal erosion and flooding are and will continue to 

be significant dangers to many Alaskan communities. The solutions 

to these problems lay beyond the existing capabilities of the communities and of the State. Existing authorities covering disaster response and recovery do not recognize changing or emerging conditions as an imminent disaster. 

7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Reinertson appears in the Appendix on page 55. 

Coastal erosion and the flooding problems associated with them 

will place a greater number of Alaskans at a higher risk at a faster 

pace. 

This concludes my prepared remarks and I stand ready to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness, Madam Chairman, is Susan Reinertson. She 

is the Administrator of FEMA for Region X. She is responsible for 

coordinating FEMA’s mitigation, preparedness, and disaster response and recovery activities in four States: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington. 

Thank you very much for coming to our hearing, Ms. Reinertson. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN K. REINERTSON,1 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, FEMA REGION X, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. REINERTSON. Thank you. Chairman Landrieu and Ranking 

Member Stevens, I am Susan Reinertson, Regional Administrator 

of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Region X. On behalf of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, we appreciate the invitation to appear today before the Subcommittee. It is a distinct honor and 

privilege for me to be here. 

All of FEMA Region X and, I am sure, all of FEMA, are dedicated to meeting the needs of the people of Alaska within the programs and authorities provided to us by the Congress and the 

President. 

I would like to acknowledge the leadership of our Alaska State 

partners, Major General Craig Campbell and John Madden, with 

whom we have forged a strong professional partnership that ensures successful emergency management for the Alaskan communities and citizens. 

FEMA is the lead Federal agency responsible for coordinating 

disaster response, recovery, and mitigation efforts following disasters and emergencies declared by the President, as authorized 

under the Stafford Act. Three programs are made available to communities through our State partner organizations to supplement 

the response activities and recovery programs of the State include 

the Public Assistance Program, which provides assistance for the 

restoration of public and certain private nonprofit facilities damaged by an event, and the reimbursement of the costs associated 

with emergency protective measures and debris removal. The six 

Alaskan Native villages most prone to erosion have received $3.1 

million in public assistance over the last 5 years as a result of 

three federally declared disasters. 

We also have the Individuals and Households Program, which 

helps ensure that the essential needs of individuals and families 

are met after disasters so that they can begin the road to successful recovery. 

And finally, there are three Mitigation Grant Programs which, 

given the focus of this hearing, I will discuss in more detail. 

8 

First, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program was authorized 

by Congress under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and is available through the State to fund State and local mitigation projects 

and planning efforts. Funding for this competitive grant program 

is not triggered by a presidential disaster declaration. Rather, it is 

funded through the annual appropriations process. 

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 flood plain. All projects must be cost-effective, technically feasible, and are selected following a nationally 

competitive peer-review process. 

Since the inception of the program in 2003, Alaska has received $1.9 million to address several local and State-wide planning 

projects and seismic retrofits of schools in Anchorage and Kodiak 

Island. 

Second, we have the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which is 

available to States and communities following presidential disaster 

declarations. The amount of assistance available under this program is a percentage of FEMA’s assistance made available under 

the response and recovery programs. Of the $18.5 million in Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds obligated in Alaska since the inception of the program, $7.5 million 

or 40 percent has been spent on relocation projects for Alaskan Native villages. Specifically, over $6.3 million in Federal funding was 

provided to relocate 11 structures in Alatna; $900,000 was provided 

for relocating 27 homes in Allakaket; and $200,000 was provided 

for relocating and elevating homes and a city building in Alakanuk. 

For all of these projects, the State of Alaska provided a 25 percent 

match funding. 

Third, the Flood Mitigation Assistance program is authorized for 

mitigating structures insured by the National Flood Insurance Program within a community participating in that program. Currently, 

32 boroughs, cities, towns, and Alaska Native village municipalities 

participate. Eligible projects for this program include the elevation, 

relocation, and acquisition of flood-prone structures. 

In 1998, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program was able to 

fund $600,000 to relocate nine private structures within Shishmaref. 

There are significant eligibility and funding challenges to FEMA 

and the State developing successful mitigation projects, including 

relocation, in Alaska Native villages. With respect to eligibility, 

projects that receive FEMA grant funding must demonstrate that 

the benefit of the project is the same or greater than the cost. With 

the high costs in rural Alaska and low population, developing a 

project or relocation effort with a positive benefit-to-cost ratio is difficult. 

In regard to funding challenges, our mitigation program’s funding is insufficient to comprehensively address the Alaska Native 

villages erosion problem. Since the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program’s funding availability is based on declared disaster losses, it 

would take a catastrophic disaster or disasters for the State to receive the needed level of mitigation funds. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program is funded nationally at $100 million for fiscal 

9 

year 2007, with a $3 million cap on each nationally selected project. 

Nevertheless, FEMA will continue to work with the State of Alaska 

to identify and provide technical assistance for planning and development of cost-effective project for consideration under all programs of the Stafford Act. 

Please be assured if one or more communities experience significant flooding and a major disaster is declared, the full breadth of 

the Staff Act programs will be provided with the greatest of coordination and allowable flexibility within the scope of the law 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 Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. Madam Chairman. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. I appreciate you all keeping it in 

the time frame and I do have a few questions. 

General Peabody, you spoke about the civil works budget for the 

country. Could you just repeat again what your budget is for civil 

works for your division and what it is for the full country every 

year? 

General PEABODY. Yes, ma’am. 

The last 5 years, we have averaged roughly about $80 million a 

year for the—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. For your division. 

General PEABODY [continuing]. Pacific Ocean Division. I do not 

have the exact figures off the tip of my tongue, but I believe the 

last few years and the President’s budget this year is on the order 

of magnitude $4 to $5 billion a year for civil works across the Nation. 

Senator LANDRIEU. The reason I want that to be on the record 

is that while these numbers seem impressive when you throw them 

out, just to give you a relative number, the damage for just these 

two storms for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has already cost the 

Federal Government—just these two storms, not Hurricane Wilma, 

not Hurricane Andrew, not any of the other hurricanes that hit the 

South, and I am sure that the earthquakes and storms, as you 

pointed out, Mr. Madden, a whole series that have hit Alaska, and 

it is one of the more vulnerable States—is exceeding $150 billion, 

the damage that the Federal Government has already contributed. 

So what we are paying on the back end to put communities back 

together is something that I have been trying to bring that message to Washington and to the Nation, is that it is such a relatively 

small amount of money that we are spending on the front end. And 

no matter how great our plans are, without some additional resources, we will not be making as much progress as I think we 

could. 

There is a baseline erosion Corps of Engineers report of communities at risk, to determine the cost of continued erosion, to determine the cost of relocation. This was done, interestingly, before the 

storms of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which really focused the 

Nation’s attention on just the devastation that can occur in a populated area, as well as isolated areas along the coast. 

10 

In 2003, the report was requested or required. Do you know what 

the status of that report is? Have you prioritized a list of communities in your region that might need relocation aid, those that are 

open to relocation or those that are interested in securing themselves in place where they are? 

General PEABODY. Yes, Senator, there are actually two reports 

that your question refers to. One is the Alaska Village Erosion 

Technical Analysis (AVETA) report. That report focused on seven 

or nine villages specifically that were, based on discussion with 

local authorities, deemed to be at highest risk. 

That particular report is completed and submitted to the Congress in April or the summer of 2006. I believe we completed the 

report in April 2006. That estimated the cost—it did three things. 

One was to identify how much time—rough order of magnitude, it 

is all rough order of magnitude—about how much time we thought 

the communities had before coastal erosion would effectively make 

their communities uninhabitable. 

Two, it told us about how much the cost would be to shore up 

the communities. 

And three, it told us about the cost to actually relocate the communities. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But that report was Alaska-specific. 

General PEABODY. That is correct, ma’am. 

Senator LANDRIEU. That was not for the whole Nation. 

General PEABODY. That is correct. 

The rough order of magnitude—and I have the details here. But 

the rough order of magnitude for either—I will talk about a semipermanent solution. Because any solution is only as good as 

what—— 

Rough order of magnitude for either relocation or shoring up the 

communities ranged from about $50 to $125 million. 

The other report you referred to is the Alaska Baseline Study. 

That is a study of all Alaska Native villages. That was generated 

by the GAO report of 2000 for—so far we have 165 communities 

that have self-identified as being at risk to coastal erosion, whether 

from the coast or actually from—some of these are close to rivers 

and have river erosion affecting them, as well. 

And we will complete that report in October of next year. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Are you all using the new technologies that— 

I think it is global spatial satellites—to determine your actual sea 

levels and measurements? 

The reason I ask is because, as Senator Stevens knows, one of 

the shocking developments after the storms that we experienced 

was that the Corps of Engineers and the people in the region 

thought that the levees were a certain height but found out, after 

more accurate measures, that they were three to four feet lower 

than where they should have been due to lack of accurate measuring. 

Now with technology today, and I have introduced this to Louisiana and I want to ask if you have it here, you can literally get 

very quickly the levels of—I guess land levels and rises. Are you 

all using that technology? Do you have it available to you in the 

region? 

11 

General PEABODY. Yes, we are using that technology—the point 

you are getting to is actually a really important point. This is absolutely essential. To make good informed decisions and to spend the 

taxpayers’ dollar in the most effective and efficient way, we really 

need to have good hard scientific data. In Alaska, we are data poor. 

So the two studies I referred to, in my judgment, really are starting us on a journey to get the data that we need to be able to make 

these good well-informed judgments that are based on science and 

sound technical knowledge. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I would really strongly suggest that we 

pursue that in every region of the Corps because Senator Stevens, 

without a doubt, the decisions we make could be extremely costly 

to the citizens, to the taxpayers, and we need to make them smartly. 

Let me just ask, Mr. Madden, if I could—and I am sorry I do not 

have this data—but you said in your statement that Alaska had experienced an inordinate number of disasters, that the State had declared disasters, and the Federal Government indicated 20 or so, 

as you stated. 

As your experience as a disaster leader for recovery, how does 

Alaska rank with all the other States? Do you all ever sort of rank 

how many disasters you have relative to other States? And the intensity of those disasters. Could you, just from your experience, say 

that Alaska would be the No. 1 State? Or high up on the listing 

of both State declared and federally declared? 

Mr. MADDEN. We do make informal comparisons with the other 

States, ma’am, and Alaska is probably within the top five or six in 

the Nation for the number of State-declared disasters. 

The nature of our disasters that have reached Federal level for 

the widespread devastation, they are infrequent but they are severe. We are the only State to ever get earthquakes above 9.0 on 

the Richter scale, and we have had three of them. 

We are the only State that gets five hurricane force storms every 

year, guaranteed. 

So the number of disasters is probably in the top five or six in 

the Nation. I think we are probably No. 1 in the Nation for the 

range of disasters: Volcanos and earthquakes and floods and fires 

and high winds and extreme freezing. So the spectrum of these disasters is probably greater in this State than in any other State. 

Senator LANDRIEU. One more question. Do you find, and this is 

not the subject of this hearing specifically but it is on our minds 

as we struggle to rebuild in the Southern part of the country, what 

is the—just a brief comment about the insurance availability to 

people to recover their homes and businesses after a catastrophic 

loss? Is there any insurance sold in the State that is affordable that 

covers catastrophic loss? For a residence, not necessarily businesses? 

Mr. MADDEN. We have been checking most recently into the seismic events as one of our threats out there. We are experiencing 

within the State, I think now only one carrier offers earthquake insurance. Other carriers have pulled out of the market and they 

may have grandfathered in their policies but are not writing new 

policies. 

12 

And on the flood insurance for individuals, so little of the State 

outside of the developed areas have the right documentation to understand if they are or are not in flood plains. So without that documentation, insurers are reluctant to even enter the market. 

Senator LANDRIEU. One of the things that our Subcommittee is 

going to do is to try to come up with a different paradigm of recovering after a catastrophic disaster that entails more than just government subsidies, that entails some sort of partnership with the 

private sector and the government to rebuild, whether the small 

villages like I saw in Shishmaref yesterday, or whether they were 

larger communities like the 450,000 people in the city of New Orleans, which is my hometown, that lost 80 percent of the city was 

lost to flooding. 

The whole country, I just want you to know, is really struggling 

with this, from the East Coast to the South Coast of the country. 

Here in Alaska, I would think it would be a problem, as well. 

Ms. Reinertson, I know that you commented, and FEMA has generated, I have to say, a tremendous amount of criticism at home 

not because of the people of good intentions. But the Stafford Act 

has just been found very wanting to try to recover from catastrophic disaster. 

So the project work order sheets that have to be filled out to rebuild every building, every classroom, respond to every desk that 

has been destroyed or firehouse or police station. The communities 

are really struggling to find the money to rebuild them and them 

have FEMA reimburse them. If your community is destroyed, you 

do not have the money to put up to rebuild your schoolhouse. 

Are you all having any internal discussions inside of FEMA as 

to a way that we can get a better public work order process within 

the ranks of FEMA? Has that come up at all in your discussions 

this year as you looked at what is not working in the southern part 

of the country? 

Ms. REINERTSON. As being the Regional Administrator for Region 

X, I do not get involved in those discussions. I am unaware of what 

has been happening at FEMA headquarters regarding that issue. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Because I just think that—and the Senator 

knows this better than almost anyone—but the military, when they 

go through exercises does lessons learned because all battles are 

not the same. We want to learn from the battle so your generals 

do not repeat mistakes in the next one. 

I really hope that the other 10 regions are paying more attention 

to what happened in our region because you could learn a great 

deal about what is not working for the people as we struggle to recover, in terms of bureaucracy and red tape associated with the 

current Stafford Act. 

So as part of what we are here to try to prevent the disaster, 

mitigate against it and if it happens, to be better responders. And 

I thank you for your comments. 

Senator Stevens. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

General Peabody, you passed over Section 117 of the Appropriations Bill so quickly, just so we will all remember what you said, 

it authorized the Secretary of the Army to ‘‘carry out, at full Federal expense, structural and non-structural projects for storm damVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:31 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 038848 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38848.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
13 

age prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial 

damage in Alaska, including relocation of affected communities and 

construction of replacement facilities.’’ A very general authorization 

to go on top of the Stafford Act. 

It does not seem the Corps was impressed by that authorization 

at all. Did you have any instructions at all from your headquarters 

about how to react to that authorization? 

General PEABODY. Sir, we actually have used that authorization, 

which the key component from our perspective is that it provides 

100 percent Federal funding in that the cost-sharing aspect of it, 

which is a key ingredient to practically every other authority that 

we have, is not a requirement. And that is critical for most of the 

villages in Alaska because they just do not have the resources to 

be able to do any of the cost-sharing. 

Senator STEVENS. I know that, and the difficulty I have is with 

a new paradigm that we cannot add money to the budget, as has 

been requested by the President, you initiate the Corps of Engineers project for this area, the Pacific Region. Did you request any 

money in 2006 or 2007 pursuant to Section 117? 

General PEABODY. Did I, sir? No, sir, I did not. 

Senator STEVENS. Why not? 

General PEABODY. Sir, I am not asked to request money for the 

Federal budget. The Corps of Engineers does that at the headquarters with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works? 

Senator STEVENS. Well, don’t they come to you and ask you what 

your requirements are before they prepare their budget? 

General PEABODY. No, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I hate to tell you, back in my day, in the 

Eisenhower Administration, they did. And the bureaus and the 

local offices went to the regions, and the regions went to their bureaus and the bureaus went to the assistant secretaries and the assistant secretaries went to the Secretary and the Secretary went to 

the OMB. 

Now who is going to go to OMB and request money for the authorization I got under Section 117 unless you do it? 

General PEABODY. Well, sir, we do make it known to the Corps 

headquarters what the requirements are for Alaska. 

Senator STEVENS. But do you take into account the authorization, the specific authorization that Congress gave us for these 

storms on the West Coast? This was specifically directed to the 

storm damage on the West Coast. We all knew that. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. But your agency has never requested any 

money from headquarters to carry it out; right? 

General PEABODY. Not to my knowledge, sir. No, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, maybe I better get the General in charge 

of the Corps of Engineers and ask him why he did not. But I have 

not seen any requests at all for money to carry it out. 

We are faced with the problem of trying to write that in one of 

these infamous earmarks now to meet the needs of these people 

unless someone authorizes it, someone recognizes the authorization 

you already have. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. That is sort of mind-boggling, to say the least. 

14 

What about coordination with the State and the agencies we 

have created like the Denali Commission? Have you instituted a 

program of cooperation with the State, and particularly the agency 

we created which is Federal/State in nature? 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir, we have. In fact, there are three main 

areas where we have collaborated. One with the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, which has done something—— 

Senator STEVENS. I am only interested in this one subject—— 

General PEABODY. Denali. 

Senator STEVENS [continuing]. Erosion damage. Do you have a 

coordinating concept with regard to the State of Alaska and particularly this Federal/State agency, Denali Commission, for erosion 

damage on the West Coast? 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir, we do. With the Denali Commission, 

we are involved and actively collaborating and coordinating with 

them for the last 2 years. In fact, the Denali Commission just gave 

us nine task orders recently to do some work on providing barge 

landings and—designs for barge landings and docks in communities. 

Senator STEVENS. Did any of those committees come up and ask 

about the need, the dollars required from the Federal Government 

to carry on your work? 

General PEABODY. For the total program, sir? Not to my knowledge. 

Senator STEVENS. The West Coast. We are talking about that 

erosion on the West Coast. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Did you come up with any specific numbers? 

General PEABODY. With the Denali Commission? 

Senator STEVENS. Working with the State and the Denali Commission? 

General PEABODY. Well, Senator, the State has a committee that 

we have our engineering division chief cochairs one of the working 

groups on the coastal erosion on the West Coast with the State. 

Senator STEVENS. What I am trying to point out, what you have 

left is a void. It means those of us from Alaska have to dream up 

these figures and ask Congress to appropriate money so you can go 

ahead with the program. Who is going to ask for the money? You 

have seen the damage. We know it is there. It has been 3 years 

of damage. 

Have you ever requested money from the Corps of Engineers to 

meet the needs of Section 117? 

General PEABODY. Sir, we made clear to the Corps what the requirements are after the different—for the different issues on 

coastal erosion—— 

Senator STEVENS. That is what I am asking. 

General PEABODY [continuing]. In Alaska. 

Senator STEVENS. Did you ask for money under Section 117? 

General PEABODY. Sir, I do not formally send up a memo saying 

I need money under Section 117. But we make known the requirements that we have. That then goes into the budget process. And 

there are six or seven key parameters that are used, again at an 

echelon above me, at the headquarters and in the Secretary’s office, 

to determine whether or not these will compete at the national 

15 

level. Those have to do with dam safety, they have to do with economic benefit-cost ratios, and so forth. 

And frankly, sir, they do not compete because they do not meet 

any of the criteria that the Federal policy establishes as a priority 

to meet the budget requirements? 

Senator STEVENS. What is Section 117? There is a declaration 

signed by the President that it is your job, that the Secretary of 

the Army is to carry out this program with regard to both prevention and reduction and erosion and ice and glacial damage in Alaska because it was an emergency at the time. 

My great friend from Louisiana, we went down there. We immediately put up money for the Corps of Engineers. There was not an 

environmental impact statement. There was not a basic study. But 

we did give you some money that one year in that bill. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. It was used for an environmental impact statement. It was used for design analysis. It wasn’t used for an emergency basis. 

General PEABODY. Sir, those are requirements under the law to 

execute the actual construction. 

Senator STEVENS. This is the law, to use the money, including relocation of affected communities and construction of replacement 

facilities. That is the law in 2005. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir, and I agree with that. But the environmental impact requirements, environmental assessments, are 

also a part of the law that we must follow. 

Senator STEVENS. Why didn’t they follow them in New Orleans? 

They did not do a—we had damage up and down the West Coast 

just like they had in New Orleans. But every time we get money, 

we have to use it for an environmental impact statement. You can 

see the damage. It takes a full year to get people in there to start 

preventing the next year’s damage. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir, it does take—— 

Senator STEVENS. And now the damage has already taken place. 

That is what we saw yesterday. Three different stages of damage 

in Shishmaref, the first initial money was washed away, the second 

one was washed away. Now we hope the third one succeeds. But 

it could have—if we moved in immediately, the first time, and 

spent the money instead of spending it for studies and gone in and 

done it on an emergency basis probably the second and third one 

would not have been necessary. 

General PEABODY. Sir, we did execute emergency erosion control 

at Kivalina. The problem with executing things on an emergency 

basis is they are very temporary in nature. 

Senator STEVENS. I understand that, Colonel. But that did not 

say Kivalina. It said the whole West Coast. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir, but I am giving you an example of 

where we have done an emergency basis execution on a construction mission and it does not last. Those studies are really key and 

central for us to be able to execute a shoreline protection system 

that will have some duration. 

Senator STEVENS. You have got another authority called a continuing authority program; right? 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir, we do. 

16 

Senator STEVENS. Did you use the capability for each one of 

those nine threatened cites, the continuing authority program? 

Have you used it on the West Coast for those nine villages that 

were identified both by the GAO and by your report, as being in 

dire trouble? 

General PEABODY. Sir, we have—— 

Senator STEVENS. Have any economists or anyone else looked at 

the continuing authority program? 

General PEABODY. Sir, we have used the continuing authority 

program. All of the studies, all of the work that we are doing with 

the continuing authorities program currently is focused on studies. 

And that is because the 2006 Appropriations Act basically told the 

Corps of Engineers no new starts—you have to finish what you 

have already started. 

So if we had not started any of those projects, which we had not 

at that time, we were essentially frozen in being able to go forward. 

Senator STEVENS. I am not trying to beat you up, General. I am 

just trying to say the programs—— 

[Laughter.] 

General PEABODY. I understand. 

Senator STEVENS. Have you identified any additional funds for 

that Tribal program for these affected communities? Have you delineated the needs for the Tribal Partnership Program for those 

nine areas? 

General PEABODY. Sir, we have not. And I have probably done a 

poor job of answering your question. We do identify the needs and 

we do make clear to the headquarters all of the requirements that 

we have based on coordination and collaboration with local, State, 

and Federal authorities here in Alaska, to include the Denali Commission. 

When we send it up, however, again when that goes into the 

budget process to determine what is going to be funded and what 

is not going to be funded across the Pantheon of Federal programs 

that are requirements, they do not compete based on the rules that 

are currently part of the game. 

Senator STEVENS. I have a definite feeling if the Federal Government had reacted in the first instance with the storms in 2005 the 

way we reacted in New Orleans, we would not be spending money 

now to deal with the tertiary damage that has taken place in 2006 

and 2007 in these villages. 

We did not move, and I do not know why because we gave you 

a general authority to move, the Secretary. We are going to have 

a little fun with the Secretary later this year in the Appropriations 

Committee. 

Let me move on. Mr. Madden, I am interested, after listening 

yesterday at the State legislature’s hearing. One of the great problems I see is that we have Federal programs—and FEMA is one 

of them—they have requirements for eligibility. They have to have 

an approved mitigation plan in order to move forward to mitigate 

damage. 

As I take it, the problem is that these villages do not have the 

money for that. Have you ever looked at trying to ask the legislature to make money available to these villages so they can get included in the Hazards Mitigation Program? 

17 

Mr. MADDEN. Not to the legislature, sir. We have been trying to 

handle that within our direct resources. We have teams that have 

gone out to several of the communities to help them write it from 

scratch, develop a template that can be used across a range of villages. We have used some of the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant 

money for that, for them to accomplish that. 

Senator STEVENS. Ms. Reinertson’s statement indicates that only 

two villages were prepared. Shishmaref and Kivalina are working 

on a plan. But other than that, there is no plan. Am I right? There 

is no pre-mitigation plans prepared yet in these areas. And that is 

why we cannot deal with the mitigation programs. Is that correct, 

Ms. Reinertson? 

Ms. REINERTSON. The mitigation plans, to my knowledge, are in 

a draft form right now. We have been working with them and helping them with the planning process. 

Senator STEVENS. But there were nine villages noted in the GAO 

program and seven of the nine were in the Corps program. And 

only two of them seemed to be having progress on the plans. And 

until they have a plan, they cannot get your assistance. Am I right? 

Ms. REINERTSON. Correct. 

Mr. MADDEN. Sir, we have 15 communities that are in the final 

stages of several of those mitigation plans, which are the central 

first step. So we do have all of those communities covered, plus several others. 

Senator STEVENS. Isn’t there any way to waive that, for people 

in dire emergency, and have suffered emergencies, serious storms 

three times? Why do we have to wait to make plans now for these 

villages that we know were damaged three times by storms in the 

last 3 years? Don’t you have authority to waive that, Ms. 

Reinertson? 

Ms. REINERTSON. No, I do not have the authority. 

Senator STEVENS. It was waived in New Orleans. I saw it. Every 

Federal agency went in there and started working. But they did 

not do that here. 

Ms. REINERTSON. No, that is correct. The Stafford Act does not 

allow us to waive for a natural process such as erosion. 

Senator STEVENS. That was declared a Presidential declaration of 

disaster in the first storm. And the declaration was available in 

New Orleans, the Presidential disaster declaration. 

Now why did we require more in Alaska to deal with disasters 

than they did in New Orleans? 

Ms. REINERTSON. I do not know the answer to that question. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, I hope you will ask your people to be prepared for that question when we get back to Washington, will you? 

Ms. REINERTSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Mr. Madden, you testified, and this is following up on what Senator Stevens said, that FEMA mitigation funds cannot be used for 

flood studies, mapping, control or demolition. Is that true? That is, 

I think, what you testified. And could you comment on it? 

And then, Ms. Reinertson, what do you think FEMA’s position 

should be about these restrictions? Is that what you testified to? 

18 

Mr. MADDEN. Yes, ma’am, it is. And I drew those words directly 

from the FEMA guidance from their brochures and publications 

with the programming. This is a direct quote from them as to what 

they can and cannot be used for. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Do you agree? 

Ms. REINERTSON. I implement and execute the policies. The policy questions are up in the headquarters. 

These are great—the Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs are wonderful programs. But we are limited 

by the eligibility and the funding that goes into them as to how a 

disaster declaration can be used. 

Senator LANDRIEU. You are not only limited by the amount of 

money, which is clearly just a cursory review of the budget, but it 

seems like you are limited by the language itself. If you are ordered 

to mitigate and you get money, even if it is a small amount, and 

you cannot use it to do flood studies, mapping, or demolition in disasters, how do you begin the process? 

As General Peabody testified, that is one of the most essential 

elements of mitigation, to figure out how high you are, how high 

you need to be, before you can even make a plan to either stay or 

move depending on what is decided. If you cannot use the mitigation money for mapping maybe, Senator, we need to either change 

the law or be more—do you want to comment, Mr. Madden? Would 

it be helpful to you? 

Mr. MADDEN. Well, I agree with the concept that you have to understand before you can act. The State is very vigorously pursuing 

digital mapping to document elevations and contours for higher 

study. There has not been a strong Federal effort to do that. So the 

State is trying to do that, mapping not only for aviation but for 

navigation and these land use issues. 

It is restrictive and the Federal law does prevent us from doing 

the right thing. The right thing is helping the communities. So 

even when we apply, our application will not even get past the first 

range of review because of the limitations of the program. 

Senator STEVENS. How do you explain the great reaction in New 

Orleans? Although, even with that, it actually was insufficient. It 

should have gone on for a lot longer and it should have been more 

directed. They were not bound by the laws you are talking about 

right now. Why should those laws not bind the Federal agencies in 

New Orleans but totally prevent us in Alaska from getting any reaction in those nine villages? 

You were there yesterday, Ms. Reinertson. You saw Shishmaref. 

You saw some damage, didn’t you? 

Ms. REINERTSON. There are a whole lot of other programs that 

can come into effect other than the Hazard Mitigation Grant program. There is Flood Mitigation Assistance. The National Flood Insurance Programs, of course, today have their own eligibility issues 

and benefits. 

But there are a lot of programs with different eligibility issues 

that are more than a hazard mitigation grant program. 

Senator STEVENS. In New Orleans your agency appointed a coordinator for all Federal programs to meet New Orleans’ needs. Did 

your agency ever think about appointing a coordinator for the nine 

villages? 

19 

Ms. REINERTSON. Not that I am aware of. 

Senator LANDRIEU. That might be very helpful, but let me just 

clarify for the record, Senator. As you know, when I talked about 

the figure of $150 billion basically allocated for the catastrophic 

disaster that occurred, please do not let the record reflect that that 

money has actually been spent. It is stuck in bureaucratic machinations, basically, just along the same lines as we are talking. 

And for the record, even though I requested, in our delegation, 

to have some of the environmental impact statements required by 

the law waived, it was denied. So we are not moving forward with 

all the waivers that we asked for. The waivers were clearly necessary then. They are obviously necessary now. 

And we are dealing with the Stafford Act and it is wholly inadequate for what we are attempting to do. I have said before part 

of this is trying to help these villages and coastal communities to 

prevent destruction. But the other aspect of it is helping them recover once destruction comes. 

And to use the analogy, it would be like us trying to rebuild Europe after World War II with FEMA project work order sheets, 

without maps that anybody either has or can read. It is just a fool’s 

errand is what it is. 

And our constituents are depending on us to get a better system 

for you, General Peabody, to request the money that you need; for 

Congress to appropriate it so that we do not get blamed when we 

ask for extra money, act like we do not know what we are doing 

in our States when we do; and have a better system. 

And that is what this field hearing is about. And I intend, Senator, to have field hearings around the country on this issue because there are many coastal communities at risk, Alaska being on 

the front line, but the Gulf Coast States also being on the front line 

and many other communities in the country. 

But Mr. Madden, do you have any suggestions for us as we move 

forward? Your testimony was full of some. Would you like to spend 

a few minutes talking about a few? 

Mr. MADDEN. Well, ma’am, my counterparts from the 50 States 

and the territories and possessions all met in Oklahoma City about 

2 weeks ago. And we have been working to understand what 

should have been in place before Hurricane Katrina and what 

would have enabled a better response, and how that would have affected it. 

And my colleague, Jeff Smith, from Louisiana has done a wonderful analysis of how those laws limited the reaction. There will 

be ready, within the next 30 to 60 days, several legislative proposals that will emerge from our collection of State directors that 

look to not only streamlining the process but to allow examination 

of these disasters and threats beforehand so we can invest something before, instead of paying great amounts after. 

So there is communication amongst the States trying to find the 

coalitions of constituencies dealing with these threats similar to 

what happened in the 1970s and 1980s with fires which know no 

boundaries. We have the storms which know no coastline exclusively. 

So I would expect that before the next legislative session there 

will be a number of proposals that come from my counterparts in 

20 

the other States as we unite to improve our recognition of how the 

Federal Government has helped and how they have hindered the 

States in preparing. 

Senator STEVENS. I hope you look at that time, when you are 

preparing these proposals, at the requirements of Federal law that 

impose upon communities like Shishmaref the duty to have a prepared mitigation plan. Unless they have it, they are not going to 

get any assistance. 

Now we may be able to cut through that. I am not sure. But at 

least the State ought to be looking at all of these areas that are 

threatened and help them to get a mitigation plan prepared. 

One of the things that bothers me after the trip yesterday was 

the comments that were made by some of the people, the local residents, in terms of the lack of ice. That the ice—this one person told 

me, in the days gone by when there was a storm, was a threat in 

and of itself because big chunks of ice came up and hit the village. 

Now the ice is disappearing. At the same time, it was a buffer to 

large waves and held down some of the larger waves in some circumstances and was a protection that is not there now for the 

storm walls that we are putting up. 

The question is what we should do in terms of having—someone 

suggested some kind of a baffle outside of that rock wall that is 

being put up to protect Shishmaref so that there would be a baffle 

to the waves as they come up, which is what the ice would have 

done if it was there. 

Are you looking at how the State can help get prepared to have 

plans that will get the assistance from FEMA if that should develop, that the storms hit us again and there is no protection? 

Mr. MADDEN. Yes, sir. We are working on several different levels 

on that. As an example, when the storm hit in Kivalina on September 13 or 14, within about 18 hours I had two people from the 

State on the ground. One was for the emergency response, the immediate safety of the community and the immediate needs of the 

people who had evacuated. 

Accompanying him was our State hazard mitigation officer to 

look at it for the longer term. So as that storm hit, he immediately 

gathered the information that we could use and share with our 

other Federal partners to get that plan done. 

And also, that the mitigation plans that we are helping the communities develop not be just single purpose. There are other risks 

at Kivalina, in particular, and other coastal communities about the 

permafrost and how buildings are built on them, and whether that 

could be a risk in the future. We want to ensure that the mitigation plans look at the entire community and all of the risks. 

And we are pushing, on a very fast track, 15 of the most vulnerable communities we have on the Western Coast. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Can I ask specifically, and I am so glad that 

Senator Stevens pushed me, but he did not have to push too hard, 

to get me to Shishmaref because I told him if I had not seen it I 

would not have believed it. And I am not unfamiliar with coastal 

communities. I represent a State with very small villages, but not 

one as isolated as this. 

But when a community—this particular village, I spoke to the 

mayor and the community leaders that spent about an hour with 

21 

us walking through the village and seeing the rock walls, the jetties and the levees, that the community was contemplating a potential move. But one of the problems is if they did, they could 

not—no one would guarantee, the State or the Federal Government, the building of the airstrip which, of course, they are very 

dependent upon for any kind of access. 

Can you all comment about that? Are villages that are given— 

are they given choices, real choices about relocating? Or is the option you can stay where you are and take the storms and the devastation that comes? Or you can move and not have an airstrip and 

be completely isolated? Because that is not a very good choice. And 

this might not be the only village in this situation. 

Is that an option? If they want to move, will somebody build 

them an airstrip? 

Mr. MADDEN. Each village will be unique on this issue as to how 

close the airstrip is located to the community. There is a commitment by the Federal Aviation Administration that they put on 

record that if a community moves and the same airstrip is usable, 

that they will build the necessary roads and contacts between the 

new location and the existing airstrip. That is a commitment that 

FAA said in the past recent years. 

Senator LANDRIEU. That is in the law now? Is it just Alaska that 

that commitment has been made to, so they will not build a new 

airstrip but they will build a road to the old airstrip? 

Mr. MADDEN. Yes, ma’am. And where the location will not be 

served by the airstrip at the former location, that must enter into 

the entire national program for airport improvement programs. 

And in Alaska it takes, just for a 3,000 foot gravel strip with minimum instrumentation it takes at least 3 years, usually more than 

that. And that is after the location has been decided and aligned 

with prevailing winds. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, that obviously is a system that is not 

going to work and needs some serious adjustment. And I am sure 

it is not just communities in Alaska that are in this situation, but 

Alaska is somewhat unique in its breadth and isolation for the 

communities. 

So when people say just move them, it involves cultural considerations. But if the village could get past that and decided for the 

most part they will move, their choices are very limited about 

where you would move to and what kind of infrastructure would 

allow you to stay together. 

General PEABODY. Ma’am, if I could comment on that, there are 

some technical, from a constructability aspect also, limitations. 

Most of the area where most of these villages are located are basically coastal plains that are wetlands. That is why we have the 

issue of permafrost. So when you do move, it will require significant material to be brought in. It will require significant investigation to make sure you can put your village at a location that can 

survive and that will endure and not just fall apart after you build 

it in 5 or 10 years. 

So it is very complex and it is very difficult from a technical 

standpoint to make sure that when you put the airfield in, it will 

endure. The further you get back from the coast, of course, the 

22 

more that affects the cultural aspects of their subsistence livelihood, as well. 

Senator STEVENS. Let me ask just one last question, Madam 

Chairman. 

When we went to New Orleans, we found that there were Federal agencies, State agencies, there were regional agencies, and 

they were all working and trying to do their best. The President 

used his authority to appoint a coordinator. It was a Coast Guard 

Admiral who did an admirable job. I think he tried to get it done. 

There were too many people tying his hands behind his back. 

But we do not have that here. Yesterday, at the legislative hearing, George Cannelos, the head of the Denali Commission, suggested they would be willing to consider taking that on. I am not 

so sure as we would like to see that happen. 

But do you see a need to have in the law a provision that someone will appoint a coordinator of all Federal agencies and a person 

to work with the State agencies and local agencies in the event of 

emergencies like this? 

General PEABODY. Sir, let me take a first pass before my colleagues here. Sir, that would be an extremely useful function because as one of your earlier questions to me indicated, we do have 

to coordinate across many different Federal, State, and local agencies to understand the details of the problem and then come up 

with viable solutions that are going to actually work over the long 

haul. 

If you have a coordinator that can pull together not just the Federal but I would also advocate for the State and the local agencies 

as well, I think that could at least help identify maybe quicker 

where some of the obstacles are so that we could address or you 

could address with the Administration appropriate solutions from 

a local policy and a statutory aspect. 

Senator STEVENS. I would like to see that person have the authority to go to a Federal court and get a waiver approved of some 

of these restrictions that prevent immediate action in an emergency. Do you see a problem with that? 

General PEABODY. Sir, we can take immediate action in emergencies. The problem is once the—— 

Senator STEVENS. You cannot waive for the environmental impact statements. You cannot waive for the provisions and laws you 

have just been talking about. 

General PEABODY. Sir, I think there is probably a disagreement 

on the definition of an emergency. I believe your definition of an 

emergency in Alaska is not one that is broadly recognized in the 

Federal Government. And it is certainly not one that I can point 

to either policy or statutory limitations and say yes, that is an 

emergency. 

Senator STEVENS. If a village is about to be annihilated, you do 

not think that is an emergency? 

General PEABODY. Well sir, it is. But there are constraints in the 

law. For example, the advanced measures that we used in 

Kivalina, the only reason we were able to execute that was because 

there was public property that was threatened in the form of the 

tanks. 

23 

Senator STEVENS. I am in favor of defining a power for this person we appoint in the event of a regional emergency to go to a Federal court and get a waiver for specific restrictions for a period of 

time to enable them to protect the people and the property from 

further damage caused by that emergency. 

Now somehow or another we have got to find some way to cut 

through this. And I think certainly this is something that New Orleans needed. I was there when they were starting to fight between 

themselves as to who has the authority, someone else has authority, you cannot do this, but before you do what you have got to do, 

we have got to do this. 

Now somehow there has to be some control, if this process we are 

in is going to continue for a period of years, we are going to see 

more of these emergencies. And I would not like to see them end 

in the future like we have seen these nine villages in the past. 

General PEABODY. Sir, that would be a useful function. I would 

just caution that if we do bypass some of the constraints and we 

do execute short-term or we do execute emergency solutions, those 

emergency solutions are likely to be very short-term and we still 

have to deal with the longer term aspects of the problem. And that 

is all of the Pantheon of factors that are contributing to this coastal 

erosion which appears to be—I am not a scientist, I have not studied it except as a citizen just like the rest of us here—but it appears to be a long-term issue that is likely to continue for some 

time. 

I do not believe that this is really amenable, in my judgment, to 

the emergency kind of solutions. 

Senator STEVENS. We have a disagreement there. 

General PEABODY. I am not sure if my colleagues want to comment on this one. 

Senator STEVENS. I do not know either, but I think the people 

that make judgments like that ought to go live in Kivalina or 

Shishmaref for the winter. 

[Applause.] 

Senator LANDRIEU. I do not believe there are any further questions for this panel, so thank you all very much. We really appreciate your testimony. 

Senator STEVENS. Ms. Reinertson, you started to say something 

and I interrupted you. 

Ms. REINERTSON. I was going to comment that what you are suggesting is outside of my authority, but I just wanted to let the Subcommittee know how committed we are, that we are working with 

the local and State in a culture of preparedness and that we are 

obviously going to be there in the event of a disaster. If something 

happens, we are not going to wait for a piece of paper to pass from 

here to Washington. We will move forward. And we will help victims and forward lean and get things to the people that we need 

to get them out of there. 

We also work very closely, our mitigation division works very 

closely with the local, with the Alaskan Native villages and the 

State in prioritizing. Thanks to the post-Katrina reforms, we now 

have an office in Alaska. FEMA has an office in Alaska that never 

existed before, with a full-time manager, with a full-time operVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:31 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 038848 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38848.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
24 

ational plan and a full-time Department of Defense planner as 

well. 

And we are working with the entire State of Alaska, including 

the Alaskan Native villages, in lots of new efforts since the postKatrina Reform Act. There is a gap analysis that is occurring that 

we are going to be starting on hurricane safety because of hurricane season. It is a wonderful tool that we are going to start. And 

it is very comprehensive that we are going to be working with the 

local, State and our other Federal partners. 

So I just wanted to point out that there are so many great things 

that happened since the post-Katrina Reform Act that we are able 

to be in a better position to help in the event of an emergency but 

also in building this culture of preparedness for Alaska and the entire region so that we can build and strengthen national preparedness. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, that is good to hear. 

What is the gap analysis that you are doing, just real briefly, 

maybe a minute on that. And Mr. Madden, I would like to recognize you on that. 

Ms. REINERTSON. We are going to be beginning at the start of the 

hurricane season. It was developed in New York. It is a tool that 

looks at what is out there, what is needed, who can fill the gap. 

And if no one can fill the gaps, where do we go to figure out how 

to fill those gaps. And it includes the private industry, private nonprofit, Federal, State and local governments. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But is that focus from right at the aftermath 

of the event itself? Or is it a gap analysis for a long-term sustainable either prevention or long-term sustainable rebuilding? 

Ms. REINERTSON. It is a holistic look at preparedness, which includes response, recovery, planning, and everything. 

Senator LANDRIEU. John Madden. 

Mr. MADDEN. It has been my honor to have served 38 years in 

Federal service and 2 years ago to be selected by the State to serve 

in this position. 

Bringing that knowledge to bear suggests that having a Federal 

coordinator is of two natures. One, it is very important to coordinate the existing resources in those activities. The State accomplished this with Federal partners on a new innovative concept to 

protect the energy sector against terrorist and natural threats. 

The other part is that it is in the nature of Federal agencies to 

control the outcome through controlling the delegation of authority. 

So just as General Peabody said, with national decisions at national level, no agency is going to give up what they would call 

their own sovereignty for a region unless it was really clearly directed on how that happens. 

The State is very eager to align with those proper agencies. And 

within the Federal community I have found no better partners for 

the State than FEMA and the National Weather Service, and in 

this last year with the Corps of Engineers. Their eagerness to help 

us is there. Their willingness is there. Their commitment is there. 

But the limitations by their headquarters are extreme. 

So if that could be broken, I think the State is very well prepared 

to use its existing structures and the new Climate Change Subcabinet and other needs to work with those Federal agencies. But my 

25 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Swan appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

concern is having someone authorized by title but not granted the 

authority to act for those other agencies. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, the State could not be blessed with a 

more determined and able advocate than Senator Stevens to get 

the headquarters to focus and to listen about what Alaska needs. 

But I can just tell you, there is a long way that we have to go. 

Senator Stevens. 

Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I do not mean to be offensive, but this is the third year now we have tried to find a solution to these problems. And what I heard yesterday is it appears 

that we are going to have another bad year. So I would hope we 

can find a way to get Congress to listen to us, to give us that authority to have an appointment. 

As I said, the Denali Commission is in place. It may be a place 

we turn to for temporary coordination. But I would like to see some 

kind of a structure that exists on all of our coasts, not just our 

coast, but the coastlines on the East and West and the Gulf and 

everywhere, to have this in place before these disasters take place. 

I do thank you very much and thank you for going along with 

us, Ms. Reinertson, and thank you for your testimony today. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you all for your service. 

Senator STEVENS. We will take a 5-minute recess. 

[Recess.] 

Senator LANDRIEU. If everybody could come in and take their 

seats, we are going to begin. 

Senator STEVENS. Madam Chairman, on the second panel we are 

going to hear first from Colleen Swan. Ms. Swan currently serves 

as the Tribal Administrator for the Native Village of Kivalina, a 

post she has held for 16 years. She is a career Tribal Administrator 

and has worked to protect the well-being of the community and has 

been very much engaged in the discussions pertaining to the restoration project in Kivalina. 

Thank you, Ms. Swan. 

STATEMENT OF COLLEEN E. SWAN,1 TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIVE VILLAGE OF KIVALINA, ALASKA 

Ms. SWAN. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Subcommittee, for 

inviting us to provide testimony on the situation in Kivalina. 

The Village of Kivalina is located on the southern tip of an 8-mile 

long barrier reef. According to Earnest Burch, Jr., the village was 

officially established with the introduction of a school that was 

built in 1905–06 on the southern tip of the island, and the immigration of a reindeer herder from Barrow who brought much needed reindeer meat to the village, and the establishment of a mission. 

The Kivallinigmiut, the Kivalina population, are the original native inhabitants of the area that includes both the Kivalina and 

Wulik Rivers. The Kivalina people originally lived their lives in settlements located inland for most of the year along the rivers. Their 

hunting habits determined their movements in the Kivalina region, 

including hunting along the coast for sea mammals. The construction of the school required them to settle on the island in order for 

their children to gain an education. 

26 

Erosion problems have always naturally occurred along the 

Kivalina coast. According to a National Geodetic Survey Erosion 

Impact Study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, which began in 1953 and ended in 2003, the island 

of Kivalina has lost approximately 27 acres on the Chukchi Sea 

side of the island with eight acres accreted on the Kivalina Lagoon, 

resulting in a net loss of 19 acres in the study period. Naturally 

occurring erosion and accretion is considered to be typical of barriers islands. The result of this study confirms the stories that elders of the community have told about the second and third ridges 

of the island parallel to the existing village site that no longer exist 

due to erosion. 

The village began discussions in the 1950s about relocating the 

village after minor flooding occurred that did not inundate the village but the storms did over-top the uplands of the island and 

threatened to flood homes located along the coast. A vote was held 

in an election process that resulted in a split decision that ended 

the effort to relocate the village almost immediately. 

In 1990, discussions to relocate the village began once again to 

address overcrowding conditions caused by the shrinking island 

and a growing population. Because of the overcrowding due to lack 

of development space coupled with the lack of water/sewer services, 

health conditions of the community became a concern. Land erosion 

and global warming were minor issues during the first years of the 

developing village relocation project. 

In 1998, an election was held by the City of Kivalina to provide 

the people in the village an opportunity to select an option to address the concerns raised during the 8 years of discussions. In that 

election process, a site was selected that was later determined by 

studies done by the Army Corps of Engineers to be rich with permafrost and was deemed unsuitable as a potential new village site. 

In response, in 2000, another election was held by the city of 

Kivalina which resulted in the selection of another site closer to the 

ocean. Global warming remained a part of the discussion because 

of land erosion along the Wulik River—that were beginning to 

emerge. 

Once what the people thought was the final vote for a new village site was made, global warming became an open issue. Predictions were made of a potential for coastal flooding in Alaska. Although no concrete evidence existed, and while skeptics abound, 

the global warming discussion began to have its effect on the 

Kivalina Relocation Project. Studies that were thought to be near 

completion became insufficient to address global warming and 

what is now perceived to be an unsuitable site because of the 

unproven flood-prone designation of the selected site. The Kivalina 

Relocation Project is now hindered because of this discussion. The 

original master schedule, as devised by the Army Corps of Engineers, planned for the village move to begin in the summer of 2006. 

In the summer of 2004, a laundry facility drain field project was 

constructed by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. This 

project required a certain amount of fill material to cover the leach 

field. The material used to cover the field was taken from an area 

adjacent to it behind the Northwest Arctic Borough School District 

27 

property despite warnings from a local resident that this removal 

of beach material would cause an erosion problem. 

During the fall sea storm season in 2004, approximately 60 feet 

of land eroded, as predicted by the local resident. An elder in the 

village observing the efforts of the local volunteers to save the 

property from erosion made a comment of how he had never seen 

sea levels that high as he was witnessing it that day. In his book 

entitled ‘‘The Inupiaq Eskimo Nations of Northwest Alaska,’’ Earnest Burch, Jr. states, ‘‘oceans begin to freeze in October until the 

time the ice leaves in early July.’’ That is no longer occurring. 

The ocean ice that had traditionally kept sea storms under some 

control to prevent waves from slamming into the land were absent 

that year and have been absent during the last few years. The fall 

sea storms of 2005 followed with the same results. 

In the summer of 2006, the Northwest Arctic Borough, with 

funds from the Denali Commission and the State of Alaska, constructed a project to protect life and property in Kivalina with 

concertainers, or wire baskets, and fabric lining stapled together at 

the seams. On the day that the celebration of the completion of this 

project was scheduled, a minor sea storm struck and immediately 

damaged the sea wall. The celebration was cancelled and repair 

work began with funds left over from the original project. A combination of several factors may have contributed to the failure including poor engineering and design work, elevated sea levels, lack 

of fall ice formation, and annual fall sea storms. 

I have to mention at this point that there was no consultation 

with the residents of Kivalina. Neither was there any consultation 

with the leadership in the community. 

At the request of the Tribal Office staff of the federally recognized tribe, the Native Village of Kivalina, the Army Corps of Engineers designed a geotextile two cubic yard sack erosion protection 

project after assessing the damage to the sea wall. But before any 

funds could be found to pay for this project, unusually early fall sea 

storms struck the village in July. That project design was abandoned due to an early fall sea storm season and lack of funding. 

The project design was fashioned based on the current condition of 

the existing seawll. The storm surge changed the condition significantly to a point where the new design could not be used. 

The undertow of the ocean surge has considerable strength. Not 

only does the wave action slam the wall, causing damage with each 

blow, but the undertow in turn draws the fill material out from 

under the baskets, causing them to collapse. To address this situation, when the Borough made the leftover funds available, the 

project supervisor devised a plan to restore some of the damaged 

baskets. But before any significant progress could be made, an earlier than usual sea storm struck again in August 2007 and destroyed the plans to salvage and fill the wire mesh baskets with 

supersacks filled with gravel. That plan was abandoned also due to 

more unusually early sea storms. 

With funds left over from the original sea wall project, which is 

mostly depleted today, the Kivalina work crews have managed to 

keep the sea wall from tumbling into the ocean. But with the lack 

of support for their efforts from the usual slush ice that once 

formed in October, all they have been able to do is to throw super 

28 

sacks at the problem. Each time a storm strikes, more one-cubic 

yard super sacks are lost to the ocean. As of Monday, October 8, 

2007, the sea walls continues to develop new problems, including 

a deepening ocean along the shore. Another problem that we face 

is lack of funding needed to prevent the loss of critical infrastructure, such as the fuel storage facility for the power plant that 

serves the community. 

The Alaska District Army Corps of Engineers has developed a 

plan and design for a rock revetment project for construction in 

2008 pending appropriation of funding from Congress. 

Based on our situation here in Kivalina, and all of the problems 

that seem to be associated with global warming, the Native Village 

of Kivalina recommends the following: First, inter-agency response, 

which includes the State of Alaska, the Federal Government as 

part of their trust responsibility to tribes, and other entities need 

to come together with the local governing bodies of the village to 

devise a plan to address erosion and relocation issues. More funds 

should be provided to the local governing bodies, whose knowledge 

has been more accurate due to the fact that the people live close 

to the land, to provide for coordination of the project. Every prediction made locally regarding the Kivalina situation by the elders 

and local community members has come to pass. 

Second, consideration should be made for the Army Corps of Engineers to be designated new responsibilities to take the lead in addressing the issues of relocating the village of Kivalina in consultation with the Native Village of Kivalina as part of their trust responsibilities to the tribe. No agency has been identified to take the 

lead in the Kivalina Relocation Project and no discussions have 

taken place on a continuous basis. Because of the erosion problems 

that we are facing today, the Relocation Project discussions have 

come to a stop. 

Third, since no real studies have ever been done on permafrost 

and being that Alaska is 70 percent wetland, study plans need to 

be devised to monitor the permafrost condition in Arctic Alaska. 

Teck Cominco Red Dog Mine has been monitoring the temperature 

of the permafrost in the Red Dog mine area that shows warming 

temperatures of the permafrost. With the land slides now occurring 

inland, this leaves a question wide open for the residents of 

Kivalina who wish to move inland to higher ground as to just how 

safe any area is in Alaska. 

And fourth, response to Kivalina’s situation has been piecemealed so badly that no one seems to know what to do. An interagency committee should be formed to address erosion in Alaska 

given the fact that arctic conditions seem to be deteriorating with 

rising sea levels and warmer temperatures. According to a report 

made recently to the Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission by the National Fish and Wildlife Service’s Jim Dau, there are 

more slumps, which are also called sinkholes by others, than he 

has ever seen before. Being that Alaska is 70 percent wetland, a 

committee would be appropriate to address the many problems associated with the warming climate. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Ms. Swan. 

Madam Chairman, we are now going to hear from Stanley Tom, 

who is the Tribal Administrator for the Newtok Traditional CounVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:31 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 038848 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38848.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
29 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Tom with attachments appears in the Appendix on page 68. 

cil. Tom also serves as a Bureau of Indian Affairs Housing Improvement Coordinator. He has held various other positions within 

Newtok’s local government, including terms as President of the 

Traditional Council, member of the school board, and General Manager of the Newtok Traditional Commission and Mayor of the city. 

Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF STANLEY TOM,1 TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE NEWTOK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, NATIVE VILLAGE OF 

NEWTOK, ALASKA 

Mr. TOM. Thank you for inviting me here. I have some copies of 

my testimony if you want to have a copy. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. TOM. I am Stanley Tom. I am the Tribal Administrator for 

the Newtok Traditional Council. 

My village is located in Western Alaska, about 92 air miles, in 

the Bering and Chukchi Seas area. We are one of the four villages 

identified as being in imminent threat from flooding and erosion. 

There is three things happening here in Newtok: Flooding, erosion, and sinking of the village because we are sitting on the permafrost. We are making plans to relocate our village. 

The village protection is not an option because they did try to 

stop the erosion with a protection and it did not work out. There 

is no permanent cost-effective way to remain in the current village 

right now. 

My points today are the problem with the severe erosion that 

cost my village and what my village has accomplished, we are 

working with the Newtok Planning Group, and the challenges we 

are facing with our work plan. 

In the picture, you can see the erosion here. Back in 1983 we 

took a picture of the aerial. You can see how much we lost. Back 

in 1996, it cut off the river and it still is causing erosion. 

We had hired ASCG to try to show the Federal and State agency 

how much it was going to have—and we used a 1954 map to indicate the erosion, and we had lost about 3,600 feet. We lost the 

barge landing, the old dump site, and the nearest one that will be 

impacted will be like within 3 to 4 years. We did use between 2012 

and 2017, but that is a conservative figure we used. 

We got this drill rig that fell off in the river. You can see the picture there. Last year you can see the gap there. We lost quite a 

bit of land just last year. And we had lost like about 80 feet just 

this summer. 

The new village site that we selected is out on Nelson Island. It 

is nine miles from the village and it is on Nelson Island that we 

selected. We call it Mertarvik. 

Back in 1996, we had a land exchange and Gale Norton signed 

an agreement and we own the surface and subsurface rights in the 

new village site. 

In 2004, we lost a lot of erosion. We lost quite a bit. You can see 

the picture, the map of the village there. You can see how much 

we lost. We are in a flood-prone area. This is a really low land, and 

30 

you can see the picture that the flooded area before it happened. 

You can see that we are surrounded by the water. 

These houses, we have got three houses that are really bad. They 

are in imminent danger and—the State gave us a piece of equipment that we can purchase and I am going to try to move these 

three houses away from this flood-prone area. 

The YKC did a health assessment and our sanitation condition 

in Newtok is grossly inadequate for public health protection. Our 

kids are hospitalized, 20 percent of them are going, they are hospitalized with a pneumonia in our villages because we are lacking 

water in our village. We are still doing honey bucket in the village. 

When we have a high water, that honey bucket debris goes into our 

village area. It scatters. 

Right now our barge landing is gone. We do not have the barge 

landing right now. We are suspended delivering materials to the 

village site, the existing site. The barge landing, actually the fuel 

barge came into Newtok and they got stuck for 3 days. And now 

they are afraid to go into our river because the river has no current. 

The tank farms are obsolete. You can see the tank farms here. 

They are corroding away. They are tilting. They are really in a bad 

state. The Commission suspended us from getting any funding in 

our existing village right now. They do not want to upgrade anything, any facilities. Our power companies are deteriorating. But 

they are trying to keep the generator running. 

We have a landfill problem, too. This river is drying up. It is getting shallower. And our trash is piling up in the village because it 

is across the river and it is a real big problem. 

Newtok Planning Group has been helping us since 2006. They 

did help us to fill out EDA money, and that is the barge landing 

for the new village site. DOT put in $200,000 so we have $1 million 

to build a barge landing in the new village site that we selected. 

We have a Village Safe Water Preparedness Committee for the 

land/water/sewer system in the new village site. You can see the 

map there, this is a rough draft that they made for us. 

The Commission gave us $30,000 to do a community layout to 

pinpoint where the school will be, and the post office. We are trying 

to build the community in the center, the public facilities in the 

center of the village. 

The Village Safe Water is doing a test water well right now. We 

got the drill rig in the new village site and they are drilling the 

new water source. They should start next week, so they have the 

material there. 

Corps of Engineers already did a geotech investigation in the village site. They also drilled the barge landing, and the roads in the 

new village site. They are now—we should begin the test later on, 

when they get them done. 

The DOT did put in a wind collection data. They are collecting 

the wind direction right now. 

The challenges are there is no agency right now leading our relocation effort. There is no specific funding for the relocation, too. We 

are like getting a few grants from here and there but not specifically for the relocation. We need to get this money as soon as we 

can because erosion is coming in quickly. 

31 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Weyiouanna with attachments appears in the Appendix on 

page 86. 

Our new village site, we call it Mertarvik. It means ‘‘getting 

water from the spring.’’ 

We did build a barge landing, a temporary barge landing, for 

other agencies that they can bring in materials. We have three 

houses right now built, three houses right now in the village site. 

We are done with it. We are almost done with these three houses. 

So we are working hard to move our own village as much as we 

can. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Tom. Our next witness is Tony 

Weyiouanna. He is the Village Transportation Planner for the Village of Shishmaref, where we were yesterday and provides vital 

transportation links between isolated Shishmaref, and other villages. We are pleased to have you with us, Mr. Weyiouanna. 

STATEMENT OF TONY A. WEYIOUANNA, SR.,1 KAWERAK TRANSPORTATION PLANNER AND TECHNICAL STAFF ASSISTANT 

TO THE SHISHMAREF EROSION AND RELOCATION COALITION, SHISHMAREF, ALASKA 

Mr. WEYIOUANNA. Madam Chairman, Senator Stevens, first of 

all, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify before 

you today to voice my concerns regarding climate change, global 

warming, and its effect on my people and home, Shishmaref. 

My name is Tony A. Weyiouanna, Sr., from Shishmaref, Alaska. 

I am married to my wife, Fannie. We have four children, three boys 

and one girl. 

Currently, I am working for Kawerak Transportation Program, 

providing technical assistance to the Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition to move the community of Shishmaref onto a safe 

site on the mainland selected by our community. 

As a past time activity, my family owns a small kennel of dogs 

for mushing along the coast of Shishmaref, reminiscing of times 

gone by and enjoying the unique lifestyle of the people of Shishmaref. 

In Shishmaref, we have continued to live our subsistence life 

style, passed on to us from generation to generation for the past 

4,000 years. The yearly spring hunt is our main season of hunting 

for our winter supply of seal oil and dried wheat, which is our main 

staple of our diet. The spring hunting season of the past 20 years 

has been shorter due to the climatic weather changes and global 

warming. Due to the unusually thin ice this past spring, one of our 

young local hunters lost his life, which has not occurred in our community in my lifetime. 

Due to the tragedy, our hunters had to wait for the ice to break 

up to use the boats for our hunting, which is a relatively safer 

transportation mode for our hunting. By the time hunters caught 

their catch, it was too hot to make the drying and preservation of 

seal oil, resulting in families losing a majority of their catch due 

to spoilage from the unusually hot weather. 

Climate change and global warming has caused extensive flooding and erosion in my community, making my family and my people feel unsafe on our island, especially in fall, due to the eroding 

32 

beachfront. Every year, we dread the coming of the fall storms, 

hoping for a peaceful freeze. Help is desperately needed for communities requesting financial assistance to relocate and to protect 

communities from flooding and erosion. 

We recommend the following projects to help move the 

Shishmaref Relocation Project forward: One, that funding to the 

Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition for administrative capacity building, comprehensive relocation planning, and funding of 

our office to ensure that the relocation of our community is completed in the most cost effective, efficient, and suited for the traditional values of our community. 

Two, authorize and appropriate $30 million in the coming year’s 

appropriations budget for the complete construction of a 21-mile 

road from Tin Creek to Ear Mountain, a rock and gravel source. 

The Alaska Department of Transportation has started the process 

of the reconnaissance study for the road and has targeted the fall 

of 2008 for the study completion. 

Also, within this part of the project is getting the airport wind 

study started and the development of the new airport master plan 

for the new site. 

Three, continue seawall funding to the Army Corps of Engineers, 

who has identified an additional $25 million needed to complete the 

recommended 3,000 feet of rip rap seawall. 

Four, authorize and appropriate $5 million for the construction 

of emergency evacuation shelter on the mainland at Tin Creek for 

the community of Shishmaref. 

Five, that Congress authorizes the National Park Service to dedicate the public roadway easement for an access corridor across the 

Bering Land Bridge to provide access to Ear Mountain, the gravel 

source. An alternative solution is to move the Bering Land Bridge 

corridor south on the other side of Ear Mountain. 

Six, a couple of other things I want to mention. One is that the 

Native Village of Shishmaref is a federally recognized tribe formed 

under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. The Native Village 

of Shishmaref also seeks to improve the local social, economic education of culture and political conditions within our community. 

Seven, in addition, Kawerak is the recognized regional non-profit 

tribal entity established to serve the Native Villages in the Bering 

Strait region and is currently compacting their Federal funds directly from Washington and has the expertise to provide assistance 

to Shishmaref. 

Eight, we recommend that consideration be made to amend the 

Denali Commission Charter to include a department with the funding mechanism to take the lead in providing assistance to communities needing relocation and flooding assistance. One possibility is 

directing the Commission to work within an agency such as the 

Corps of Engineers as a lead agency on the Federal side and a 

State agency to assist, selected by the governor. 

Nine, we value the working relationships that we have developed 

with the Congressional and State representatives agencies and look 

forward to the continued progress of relocating our community, 

with your continued support. 

33 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Ivanoff appears in the Appendix on page 135. 

In closing, we are a federally recognized tribe asking for your 

help to save our unique traditional culture of our community. We 

ask that funding be allocated to move our community. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Our last witness, Madam Chairman, is Steve Ivanoff from the 

Village of Unalakleet. He is the Village Transportation Planner. He 

is also the Recreation Director of the Bering Straits School District 

and is a self-employed fisherman. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE IVANOFF,1 VILLAGE TRANSPORTATION 

PLANNER, UNALAKLEET, ALASKA 

Mr. IVANOFF. Thank you, Senator. Welcome to our great State, 

Senator Landrieu and staff members. Nice to have you here. 

I am Steve Ivanoff from Unalakleet, lifelong resident, and will be 

speaking to you today as a representative of the Eastern Norton 

Sound, an area that has felt the effect of increasing fall storms. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the flood and erosion 

problems we have along the Western Alaskan coast. All of our villages in our Bering Straits region are situated along the coast with 

a handful experiencing erosion in and around the communities. 

Unalakleet is 400 miles West of Anchorage. It is a location that 

was built because of quick and easy access to the many subsistence 

activities that it has to offer. It sits on a sand spit between the 

river and Norton Sound and has been in existence for over 2,000 

years. The population is approaching 800 with Native population 

consisting of the Inupiat, Yupik, and Athabascan Indians, of which 

my children are all three, along with Irish, Russian, and Norwegian. Kind of like a melting hub of the area. 

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. We have a sub-regional clinic that provides service in Unalakleet and four other villages. Commercial fishing was our primary source of income, but we are now getting into the service providing arena. 

We had a military Air Force Base in Unalakleet for over two decades. We built a 6,000 foot runway, which is being renovated right 

now, as we speak. And we were a site for White Alice station and 

the FAA, and had many groups of environmental haz-mat cleanups 

coming through our area and are in the process of wrapping that 

up. 

Flooding. The Norton Sound area went 29 years without a flood, 

from 1974 until 2003. We then had three in a row, having disaster 

declarations in 2003, 2004, and 2005. The next village, 38 miles 

north of us, Shaktoolik, becomes an island during these floods with 

no means of evacuation. They have a population of roughly 250 

residents and are all on watch during these floods, hoping that the 

tides reverse before the ocean consumes them. 

Residents in well-developed States can jump into a car and leave 

these flood-prone areas. They cannot. They have just got to sit and 

wait. I had friends of mine that flew a plane the next morning, 

after the water had subsided. And for five miles, all they saw was 

34 

water. Then off in the distance, in the window, they saw Shaktoolik 

appear. It was completely surrounded by water. 

Our floods occur during the late evening, early morning hours, 

when it is dark and too dangerous to navigate any type of boats. 

They need an evacuation route, as their airport, too, is flood-prone. 

I am not sure I included it in the photos, but the last page has two 

photos of Shaktoolik. 

The past problems we have had with the flood declarations is 

that the time schedule to assess the damage does not fit our freeze 

case. When it floods, it freezes as the flood is occurring. So the ice 

builds up and we cannot assess the damage until the springtime. 

We have asked for extensions and they have given it to us, but it 

is just another hurdle for us to have to go through. 

Another one is they are late to award the funds. In the flood of 

2003, the repairs to the gabion wall did not happen until—or did 

not finish until the day before the next storm in 2004. 

They had notices out in the stores and the Post Offices for resi- dents to apply for $5,000 assistance for the flood. But when you 

had 50 signs in the store, you just do not take your time every day 

to go there. And the time flew by with the residents not knowing 

that the signs were there and nobody in our village got any of that 

funding that was available to them, because we did not know of the 

print that was in a corner in the Post Office and store. 

Erosion. Erosion in our community has occurred in several sections within the city boundaries. The greatest erosion occurs at the 

mouth of the river. Protection was constructed in 2000, a gabion 

wall, by NRCS in the amount of $1 million. This 1,400-foot wall 

was funded by NRCS, and is shown in the attached photos. 

The timing of the construction of the wall could not have come 

at a better time, protecting a church, a fish processing plant, a 

store, a hotel, a restaurant, the Post Office, teacher housing, school 

district storage fuel tanks, a small engines repair shop, and several 

homes. This southern section of the town is the heart of the village 

and would have seen substantial damage without the wall. 

We felt the gabion wall would have a 5-year life span and give 

us enough time to work towards a permanent fix. The wire coating 

is coming off and is now rusting and quickly deteriorating. Repair 

work must be done following each storm and back fill replaced, as 

in Kivalina. 

The Corps of Engineers are in the final stages of a design for a 

rip rap wall that would put armor rock along the full length of the 

gabion wall. We have had several public meetings reviewing the 

design and are very pleased with their recommendation. The rip 

rap wall is the most feasible option over a 50-year period, having 

the lowest maintenance cost. Once the design is complete, we will 

seek funding for this project and are hoping for your assistance. 

The State DOT is completing an erosion design for a rip rap wall 

along the beach adjacent to the DOT property and airport. This 

project is along the Northern end of the community and scheduled 

to go out to bid this winter. 

DOT is also elevating the evacuation road and will complete this 

project next summer. In the past storms of 2004 and 2005, after 

the flood of 2003, our residents—our evacuation road became completely submerged in the flood. So our residents said, could we put 

35 

markers on the road so when we leave the village we will know 

where the road is. That is being taken care of by DOT, but we had 

to wait several years for this to happen and it should not have to 

take that long for an evacuation road. 

Our community water source is five miles north of the village 

and the piping runs alongside of the beach. Erosion threatened this 

line, so the Village Safe Water is working on a design to construct 

a new line along the hillside, well away from the beach. This is expected to start within 2 years. 

In Unalakleet, we are fortunate to have hills a short distance 

away that we are now migrating into. More of our residents are 

now building homes in these hills, even if it means packing their 

water, because it offers a long-term safer area. Some of the homes 

have wells and septic systems, but not all. We do need to build access roads to speed up the process to encourage more development 

in the hills. 

The rip rap wall will protect the heart of our village, as it will 

protect our structures that are needed to function until we can 

make the transition into the hillside. 

Shaktoolik was a village situated eight miles east of the village 

until the Bureau of Indian Affairs built a school near the beach to 

cut down on mobilization costs, forcing the residents to migrate to 

what is now called the old site. My father was born in the site 

upriver. His father built 54-foot schooners up there because of the 

timber. But they were in a safe, flood-free area. The Bureau of Indian Affairs built the school, forcing all the people to move down 

to the coast so their kids can attend school. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Why did they build the school there? 

Mr. IVANOFF. To cut down on mobilization costs. The site was 

eight miles upriver and the Bureau of Indian Affairs built the 

school, even though there were no homes there, forcing the village 

to move down. 

Following the flood of 1974, the village moved two miles further 

north to higher ground, where it is now located. The natural barrier that had protected them for nearly 30 years has eroded from 

the three floods and is no longer sufficient to provide for their safety. 

St. Michael, 54 miles south of Unalakleet, has also had erosion 

and may need to move several homes in the near future. Fortunately for them, higher ground is a short distance away. 

There are funds available for reactive measures, but not nearly 

enough for proactive measures, as you had stated. In the news, we 

hear about the funds of the Gravina Bridge being in limbo. I recommend we funnel these and direct other necessary funds towards 

flooding and erosion. How can anyone argue with providing safety 

for our residents that are in harms way? 

A number of Alaska Native Villages that are either coastal communities or situated along rivers, as Newtok, or streams continue 

to experience significant loss of land and property and significant 

threat to life. These events are increasing not only in number but 

also in severity. Some of these villages do not have the internal capacity and funds to handle the additional burden of interacting 

with the various State and Federal agencies. 

36 

I believe the State needs to get more involved and send their administrators to the most affected communities to see firsthand the 

dire situations we face. The State DOT has made some improvements for roads and airport protection, but I feel the State needs 

to get more involved with our erosion problems along residential 

areas. 

One problem I have with the DOT matrix system for roads is 

that it does not give enough merit to life and safety flood issues. 

This should be above and beyond all other needs. The projects, 

such as an evacuation road in Shaktoolik, does not score well under 

their system. Yes, they are small in population, but our Federal 

Government can take some credit for putting them in harms way 

with the forced location of the 1930s. 

I have served on the Denali Transportation Committee since it 

was formed 2 years ago and am very pleased with their work. We 

had the committee travel to our villages this spring. That gave 

them an understanding about the threats that we have to live with. 

For them to walk along the massive piles of Yukon logs that are 

washed up against the homes in Shaktoolik was definitely an eye 

opener. 

Those are the photos on the last page that I gave you. 

We are also pleased with the emissions bill in Congress that 

could direct assistance for this in the future, and would be willing 

to speak in support of it. 

The Federal and State agencies need to assess the flood and erosions in the communities that have immediate needs. We support 

the GAO recommendation that a Federal agency be appointed to 

lead a work group consisting of various Federal and State agencies 

to address the flood and erosion issues in rural Alaska. Here we 

are still waiting for that to happen. 

We also recommend that rural Alaskans be on the work group 

to make recommendations to Congress and the State of Alaska to 

streamline the process so that projects can be constructed sooner 

rather than later. We, in our region, know the communities in dire 

situations and are available to make recommendations for site visits and assessments. This work group could be within the Denali 

Commission and led by the Corps of Engineers because of their expertise and understanding of the issues at hand. 

If there is a work group now, we have not heard of it because 

we have not been invited to any of these and we are one of the nine 

villages mentioned in the GAO report. We have heard of meetings 

that are being held here in Anchorage but there has been no correspondence with Unalakleet. 

We appreciate our Washington delegation and their staff making 

trips to our problematic areas. We now need to get the State administrators to educate themselves in this area. Do we have an obligation to provide for the safety and protection of our people living 

under these conditions? They have fallen victim to circumstances 

that no one saw coming so quickly. Just as we heard of the warnings prior to the hurricanes in New Orleans, this is the warning 

we are giving, like the canary in the mine or the elephant in the 

tsunami. This is a warning, and we are trying to get that message 

out. 

37 

I appreciate the discussion on Section 117, Senator. Our design 

for the erosion wall in Unalakleet is nearly complete and we are 

told now it is up to us to try to look for funds for the project. We 

do not really have the resources to interact, to go to Washington, 

DC and lobby for this project. How can—we heard of them beating 

up the earmark process in DC. If this is our only means and ways 

of acquiring a project such as this, it is hard for us because the 

process under the discussion that I heard earlier, Senator, does not 

allow for them to go to you to advocate for us for that project. But 

I appreciate the discussion you had there. 

Global warming and the wildlife is endangered. We heard of 

polar bears. We heard of walruses. And I am sure there is going 

to be funds directed to address those issues. But we have whole 

tribes that have been there for thousands of years that are in danger. I mean, we could lose a whole tribe in a storm of a 10 percent 

higher magnitude than what we had in 2005. 

In the developed States, they are fortunate. They have the option—that is the key word, option—they have an option to leave 

their community in the event of a storm. Some of our villages, like 

Kivalina, Shishmaref, or Shaktoolik, they do not have that option. 

Senator Landrieu, I appreciate your comments on Senator Stevens at the beginning. And you are right. If I had someone that I 

would like to go to bat for me, it would be him. 

In conclusion, I invite you to visit our areas and see the threats 

we face. Come to Unalakleet. You have already been to Shishmaref. 

I promise we will make it a pleasant trip for you and one that 

would be worthwhile. Thank you very much. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you all for your testimony. It occurred 

to me that is an extraordinary amount of coastline and the significant challenges to not only these villages but the other coastal communities in Alaska. It occurs to me that much stronger master 

planning by Senator Stevens’ heroic efforts to bring specific earmarks and dollars and new authorizations have been, over time, 

somewhat successful. But when you look at the challenges, particularly those brought on by our awareness and understanding of the 

immediate threat of global warming and the sea-wide temperature 

changes and ice melting, it seems to me that we probably have to 

have a paradigm shift. 

What could the State of Alaska be doing more to assist you, assuming that whatever we do is going to be in combination with 

Federal, State and local and using faith-based and private sector, 

as well. 

But my question is, specifically, if each of you would take a 

minute, what could the State of Alaska be doing more to either 

help that you could suggest to us? And then I’m going to ask you 

what you all thought about the Denali Commission. 

Go ahead, Ms. Swan. 

Ms. SWAN. I work with the Native Village of Kivalina. My experience with the State has been almost—well, we had almost no communication with the State because they work with the Borough 

governments and a lot of the decisions that are made are made outside the village and without much input from the local governing 

bodies. In particular, the seawall that was built was then developed without consultation with any of the leaders in Kivalina. 

38 

The State needs to communicate directly with the local communities who have the knowledge base to make better decisions than 

what have been made for years. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Tom. 

Ms. SWAN. As for the Denali Commission—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. I am sorry, let them answer as to the State. 

Just the State, if the State could do more to help in your situation, 

what would it be? Would it be technical assistance or coordination 

or consultation, more money? In terms of the coastal erosion issues, 

what could the State do more to help? 

Mr. TOM. I would like to see the Denali Commission help us out. 

They have more funding available. And the State is trying to help 

us right now, but still, it is not enough. There is no specific relocation funding and that is a big problem right now. 

Mr. WEYIOUANNA. With respect to the State guidelines for assistance, they are more targeted to helping recognize city governments. 

Most of our local governments within our community, the most effective ones, are the federally recognized tribes. We need to figure 

out how to work more closely with the State, especially on flooding 

and erosion, fire disaster, and earthquake disaster. We need one 

agency that could provide all the assistance in getting funding for 

the communities to help with the problems they have due to disaster. We need some kind of funding mechanism on the State side, 

whether or not it is just State funds or in combination with the 

Federal funding. We need some kind of coordinating agency to take 

the lead. 

Mr. IVANOFF. As Mr. Weyiouanna stated, the State does not recognize the tribes officially. And most of us do work with the tribes 

or for the tribes. I do not know if I am going to get reimbursed for 

this trip. I am here on my own dime right now, but I will do paperwork to try to submit it. The State does not have any kind of funds 

to allow participants to come to forums such as this. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, let me ask my question this way, and 

maybe the Senator can help clarify for me. Does the State of Alaska have any kind of coordinating council for coastal communities 

that are not tribes or natives? Because there are many coastal communities of those kind. Is there any kind of coastal State agency 

that tries to help with those coastal-related issues? You have the 

Corps at the Federal level. 

No coastal places, does the State of Alaska have a coastal agency? 

Mr. WEYIOUANNA. Madam Senator, the State has—we have 

worked with Christie Miller in the past. But it is under DCCED 

but they are not very active as far as reaching out and educating 

themselves as far as saying we need to get the administrators out 

to the communities to get that communication going. I do not know 

who in the State—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, let me ask you this and then I will turn 

it over to Senator Stevens. Are you all clear representing the villages that you are representing, and I understand there are more 

than just the four that you all are testifying on behalf of here. 

But if you had a relocation plan, if your village says this is not 

going to work, we are going to have to relocate, do you have an 

agency to take your plan to talk with them about the actual reality 

39 

of what it would take to relocate? Any one agency or do you have 

to go to a variety of agencies? 

Start with you, Ms. Swan. Is there any agency that you could go 

to? 

Ms. SWAN. The Native Village of Kivalina has been working 

mostly with the Army Corps of Engineers. Obviously, they have a 

trust responsibility. I am not aware of any other agency within the 

State. 

We have had very little communication with the State about our 

issues in Kivalina. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Has Kivalina decided to stay or relocate? 

Ms. SWAN. The people wanted to move, yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And right now there is no Federal agency for 

you to coordinate that move with? 

Ms. SWAN. No. 

Senator LANDRIEU. How many are planning to move? 

Ms. SWAN. About 380. 

Senator LANDRIEU. How about you, Mr. Tom? 

Mr. TOM. There is 433. The State census says 350 but it is outdated. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And it is how many? 

Mr. TOM. About 430. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And you decided to move? 

Mr. TOM. Yes, we have decided. We are already processing our 

own relocation effort without the help of the Federal and State 

agencies. We are not moved but we are lacking specific grants for 

the relocation effort. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Weyiouanna, have you decided to stay or 

move? 

Mr. WEYIOUANNA. In 2002, the community of Shishmaref had a 

community-wide vote sponsored by the City of Shishmaref asking 

the question whether you would like to move or not. The majority 

of the voters voted to move. Then on December 12, 2006, the community had a public meeting, reaffirmed the selection of Tin Creek 

as the relocation site. 

Mr. IVANOFF. In Unalakleet, it is kind of like a voluntary move. 

We have people migrating into the hills. Like I said, there is at 

least a dozen homes up on the hillside now and I have three brothers building homes up there next year. And they are doing it out 

of their own pocket, their own dime, no coordination with the State. 

The Corps of Engineers has been the most active agency that has 

been involved with the flood issues. They have made many trips 

out to Unalakleet, and I have hosted them many times. The State 

has not been involved in the process in the past. I am hoping they 

can become part of it in the future because it would be nice that 

this erosion project in Unalakleet does not have to be 100 percent 

funded by the Federal Government. It would be nice if the State 

could kick in a few million to help with the process. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I am going to turn it over now to Senator Stevens. I think this question is going to become more and 

more real to many communities throughout the United States. We 

are going through those questions now. What communities are 

going to stay, what communities need to move. This is happening 

in many coastal areas. 

40 

But it is important that when those decisions are made, which 

is very tough and can be very traumatic to decide the course for 

a village or a community to move, there should be a master plan 

that people can count on for 5 years or 10 years. 

But otherwise, we are at risk of losing these villages just by lack 

of funding and lack of organized effort that is laid out in the future. 

Mr. IVANOFF. If I may, Madam Chairman, Senator Stevens, I 

mean. 

One of the villages I work with is Shaktoolik, and they are—like 

I said, they become an island. They need an evacuation road. And 

like I said, their natural barrier between them and the ocean has 

seriously eroded in the last three storms. And they are in the process—mindset, of discussions of relocation. 

And with this continued trend, they have no choice. They have 

to relocate because they do not have the resources and the State 

is not involved in working with them to figure out a long-term solution. It is kind of like the federally recognized tribe is the only 

agency right now that we are working with. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Senator Stevens. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. 

If you look at what you have just given us, I have gone over it. 

You want, for Unalakleet, $1 million a year until the move is finished. You have asked for $30 million plus $25 million plus another 

$5 million for the move, so $61 million. Was that your figures, Mr. 

Weyiouanna? 

Mr. WEYIOUANNA. I think so. Sounds right. 

Mr. IVANOFF. You can send it my way. 

Mr. WEYIOUANNA. I was just looking at it. 

Senator STEVENS. $61.1 million just for this year is what you 

have asked for, as I understand it. 

Mr. WEYIOUANNA. Yes. 

Senator STEVENS. The entire budget for the Denali Commission 

this year was $100 million. The request for next year is $64 million, $60-some-odd million. Your one village request is for the full 

amount of funding we have been able to get for the whole State. 

The problem we have, and Madam Chairman, my friend from 

Louisiana has really put her finger on it. And that is there has 

been no coordination within the State of priorities in this request 

to move. Some of them, as you pointed out, Shaktoolik is absolutely 

isolated now. They should get priority over everyone else because 

they are in absolute danger, as I understand it, from another 

storm. 

Mr. Weyiouanna, you are far ahead of some of the others, but 

very clearly the prospects of each getting—for each of these nine 

villages—somewhere near $70 million in the next year is next to 

impossible. 

The question is how do we stage this money so we get some 

money and start putting it where it is absolutely necessary and 

start the process, the long-term process, of relocation of these villages. 

Where will we be able to include all of the coastal villages, as I 

understand it several others have come into the category of being 

endangered now because of the last storm. It does seem to me we 

are going to have to have a State-wide constant evaluating the 

41 

problems and trying to allocate resources from both the State and 

Federal Government to the areas that need it first and most. 

It is not there yet, but that is one reason we are holding the 

hearing. I know that is one reason Representative Samuels held his 

hearing yesterday. We are going to have to get together and find 

some way to coordinate the Federal and State efforts with the individual villages that are in need of help. 

Mr. Weyiouanna, you are going ahead very quickly, but I am not 

sure that your village is the one that has to move this year, is what 

I am saying. That is one of the problems. If we get money, where 

should it go first? And who is going to allocate it? Who is going to 

coordinate it with the Federal and State agencies to make sure 

that we are—this is a very difficult problem. You all ought to be 

involved in the basic decision of where the money is allocated and 

how it is to be spent. 

I really do not have the answers yet. We hope we can get the answers out of these hearings. I intend to talk to Representative 

Samuels about his hearings yesterday and see if we can work out 

a Federal-State coordinating group within the legislative process if 

we work together with him on that. 

As much as I really commend all of you for what you are doing, 

I think—I do not know which village it is, but the ones that were 

outlined by the Government Accounting Office as being the most 

threatened, seemed to be the most threatened. But that list is 3 

years old now. And I do think we have to have a new evaluation 

of those villages that have just come into this category of endangered and make sure that we have representation from them and 

conversations we are going to have in the next few months, how 

to start dealing with these problems. 

If you have any suggestions, I think you have given us some in 

your statements. I do not want to be offensive, but each village is 

proceeding on the basis that they are going to come first. And the 

demands of each one of them are roughly about the same amount, 

somewhere near $70 million for this year alone. That is impossible. 

Unless we have the request from the Federal agencies today, the 

new rules apply in Congress. We are not permitted to come forward 

and say you want to earmark money. In this case, it would be over 

$100 million for the villages alone. It is not possible under our procedures now. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Can I ask, do the villages—have you all ever 

met together? 

Mr. IVANOFF. Never. 

Senator LANDRIEU. If you come up with some sort of planning 

process. The reason I say this is we were not doing a very good job 

in Louisiana with planning, I will have to admit. And this storm 

did not catch us by surprise. But it was much worse, not just the 

hurricane, but actually the Corps of Engineers, I used to say their 

legacy was a city underwater and it was a terrible tragedy when 

80 percent of the city went under either four to 20 feet of water 

and we lost 250,000 homes between Louisiana and Mississippi. 

Mississippi from the storm surge, but ours from the massive flood 

that flooded an area greater than New Orleans. 

Now we are doing a lot of planning and our cities are working 

together. We have a group called charettes. And every town, big 

42 

and small, all over the Gulf Coast, is in some measure undertaking 

this discussion about what is going to happen and what are they 

going to do in 10 or 20 or 30 years? Are they going to move parts 

of their town? Are they going to build 15 feet up? 

And the towns are meeting together and planners have come in 

from literally all over the world to try to help us. And perhaps that 

model could be used here. 

The Federal Government is not paying for all of this, let me say. 

The State is responsible, local—we have parishes. We have boroughs, counties, and parishes. The parish level is dealing with the 

State. It is not just the Federal Government. But these charettes 

are planning for the people to make the decisions themselves and 

try to, as Senator Stevens says, to come up with cost-effective solutions. Because our taxpayers all over the country are demanding 

that we come up with not the most expensive but cost-effective that 

respects culture and the communities that we are dealing with. 

So perhaps you can give some advice to the villages to start 

working together. Like Senator Stevens says, if you can help decide, even suggest, who should move first, who should move second, 

etc., kind of a triage or priority decision. 

Senator STEVENS. Senator, I am going to meet with the governor 

tomorrow. We have got to wind this up because we are both due 

at another meeting. But the next time I will be home will be the 

week of Thanksgiving. I am going to tell you right now, I am going 

to try to get the governor to agree to call a meeting here in Anchorage on November 19 and meet for a couple of days, November 19 

and 20, to get representatives from each one of the villages that is 

affected. I am going to ask the Corps of Engineers to come and join 

us and FEMA and the State agencies. And let’s see if we cannot 

get together and develop some priorities and develop some basic requests that we can take back to Congress. We will be out of session 

by then and we will be going back into session maybe in December. 

But in any event, we are going to have to find some mechanism 

to get the Office of Management Budget on the Federal level to recognize that there is an emergency up here and get us some emergency assistance for the 2008 period. 

I noticed today that I am going to ask for that meeting here 

starting on the morning of November 19, Monday and Tuesday before Thanksgiving. I am sure the Chairman will help get some representation and get letters out to Federal agencies so they will 

come and be here. It is not exactly a great week to travel just before Thanksgiving, but we will do it Monday and Tuesday so people 

can get back home in time for Thanksgiving. 

But I do think we have to get some emergency coordination. We 

have to figure out who should we get the money for? If we get 

money this year, where is it going to go? And who is going to allocate it? Who is going to supervise it? Who is going to coordinate 

the Federal and State agencies to see that it is done. It is apparently required because of the storms that have already come. And 

if we have another storm before then, only God knows what we can 

do. 

The problem with meeting is we do not have any preparation for 

immediate assistance after a disaster right now and I think the 

Federal agencies do their best to respond. 

43 

This is getting to the point now that I feel that there are 18 villages before the year is out that have similar requirements and we 

need to get prepared and get it planned and try to work out what 

can be done. These villages are working on the basis of what you 

want to have done. Our problem is what can we put together to assist you, what is possible within the time frame ahead. 

I will not forget you at that time. 

Thank you, Senator Landrieu, for coming. This is a hearing, 

similar to what Representative Samuels had yesterday, I think we 

can put together something if we can find a way to work between 

the Federal agencies and the State agencies to get some answers 

to the requests. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I want to support Senator Stevens in every 

way. I am not sure that I can be here personally at that time, I 

will check my calendar to see. But I will give the full support of 

my subcommittee and will urge the full Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs Committee to make this a priority. 

I want to say, I do not keep meaning to refer to Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, but it was a real wake up call. Not to frighten 

you, but we lost 2,000 people who drowned in that storm. Some of 

them drowned in their homes. We had children drown in the arms 

of their parents and senior citizens that could not swim and 

drowned in their living rooms. 

It is clear that it is an emergency. And I just hate to see that 

happen to communities here. 

And we could evacuate. But the City of New Orleans evacuated, 

outside of first responders, every living person over the course of 

2 weeks, every day out of every hospital, every senior citizen out 

of every nursing home. We did not evacuate, I guess you know, 

when we should have, 100,000 out of 450,000 were left in the city. 

But over the course of the next 2 weeks, with the help of the Corps 

and the Coast Guard, every single person was evacuated. 

And today, 2 years later, out of a city of 450,000 only 200,000 

people are back. And 2,100 people basically died in that situation. 

So we have a lot of emergencies around the country, and Senator 

Stevens, I do not think I know of one that really understands what 

our people are faced with here. And the amounts of resources and 

coordination that must be brought to bear. 

So Senator Stevens and I will stand up against the bureaucracy 

as well as we can. 

I want to thank the Loussac Library and thank all of the Federal 

and State witnesses for coming today. 

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Tom. 

Mr. TOM. Newtok has less media attention and we decided to 

move. And no other State Senators ever visit my village. If you are 

able to come to Newtok and see for yourselves, see how we are in 

a hard condition where everything is deteriorating. 

Senator STEVENS. I understand. I have been to six of the nine 

but I have not been to your village yet. I will do my best, see if 

we can work that out when I come back. 

Mr. TOM. Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(45) 

A P P E N D I X 


38848.001
46 


38848.002
47 


38848.003
48 


38848.004
49 


38848.005
50 


38848.006
51 


38848.007
52 


38848.008
53 


38848.009
54 


38848.010
55 


38848.011
56 


38848.012
57 


38848.013
58 


38848.014
59 


38848.015
60 


38848.016
61 


38848.017
62 


38848.018
63 


38848.019
64 


38848.020
65 


38848.021
66 


38848.022
67 


38848.023
68 


38848.024
69 


38848.025
70 


38848.026
71 


38848.027
72 


38848.028
73 


38848.029
74 


38848.030
75 


38848.031
76 


38848.032
77 


38848.033
78 


38848.034
79 


38848.035
80 


38848.036
81 


38848.037
82 


38848.038
83 


38848.039
84 


38848.040
85 


38848.041
86 


38848.042
87 


38848.043
88 


38848.044
89 


38848.045
90 


38848.046
91 


38848.047
92 


38848.048
93 


38848.049
94 


38848.050
95 


38848.051
96 


38848.052
97 


38848.053
98 


38848.054
99 


38848.055
100 


38848.056
101 


38848.057
102 


38848.058
103 


38848.059
104 


38848.060
105 


38848.061
106 


38848.062
107 


38848.063
108 


38848.064
109 


38848.065
110 


38848.066
111 


38848.067
112 


38848.068
113 


38848.069
114 


38848.070
115 


38848.071
116 


38848.072
117 


38848.073
118 


38848.074
119 


38848.075
120 


38848.076
121 


38848.077
122 


38848.078
123 


38848.079
124 


38848.080
125 


38848.081
126 


38848.082
127 


38848.083
128 


38848.084
129 


38848.085
130 


38848.086
131 


38848.087
132 


38848.088
133 


38848.089
134 


38848.090
135 


38848.098
136 


38848.099
137 


38848.100
138 


38848.101
139 


38848.102
140 

Æ 


38848.103