[Senate Hearing 108-808]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-808
ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE EROSION
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARINGS
JUNE 29, 2004--ANCHORAGE, AK
JUNE 30, 2004--ANCHORAGE, AK
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-486 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Page
Opening Statement of Senator Ted Stevens......................... 1
Statement of Senator Conrad Burns................................ 2
Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska.... 2
Statement of Senator John Sununu, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire 3
Statement of Brigadier General Robert L. Davis, Division
Engineer, Pacific Ocean Division, United States Army Corps of
Engineers...................................................... 4
Accompanied by Colonel Tim Gallagher, Commander, United States
Army Corps of Engineers' Alaska District....................... 4
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General Robert L. Davis.......... 5
Pacific Ocean Division........................................... 6
Alaska Flooding and Erosion...................................... 6
Corps of Engineers Authorities................................... 6
Prior Flood and Erosion Control Studies and Projects............. 7
Current Studies and Projects..................................... 8
Challenges....................................................... 11
Prepared Statement of Aleutians East Borough..................... 13
Nelson Lagoon Erosion Control Project............................ 13
Statement of John Pennington, Regional Director, U.S. Federal
Emergency Management Agency.................................... 14
Accompanied by Carl Cook, Division Director, Flood Insurance
Mitigation Division, U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency.. 14
Stafford Act Assistance.......................................... 14
Pre-disaster Mitigation Program.................................. 15
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.................................. 15
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program.............................. 16
Prepared Statement of John E. Pennington......................... 16
Statement of Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director, Natural
Resources and Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office...... 18
Prepared Statement of........................................ 20
Most Alaska Native Villages are Affected to Some Extent by
Flooding and Erosion........................................... 24
Alaska Native Villages Have Difficulty Qualifying for Federal
Assistance..................................................... 25
Four Villages in Imminent Danger are Planning to Relocate, and
the Remaining Five Villages are Taking Other Actions........... 27
Alternatives for Addressing Barriers That Villages Face in
Obtaining Federal Services..................................... 28
Statement of Patrick N. Poe, Regional Administrator, Alaska
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 30
Importance of Aviation in Alaska................................. 30
Airport Improvement Program Grants............................... 30
Building an Airport in Alaska.................................... 30
Prepared Statement of Patrick N. Poe............................. 31
Federal Assistance to Villages................................... 33
Airport Relocations.............................................. 35
FEMA's Prevention Authority...................................... 35
Relocate a Village............................................... 36
National Flood Insurance Program................................. 40
Statement of Wayne Mundy, Administrator, Alaska Office of Native
American Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.................................................... 44
Prepared Statement of........................................ 46
Statement of Edgar Blatchford, Commissioner, Department of
Community and Economic Development, Anchorage, Alaska.......... 47
Prepared Statement of........................................ 49
Statement of David E. Liebersbach, Director, Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management, Fort Richardson, Alaska..... 51
Prepared Statement of........................................ 53
Statement of Dr. Thomas R. Karl, Director, National Climatic Data
Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce......................................... 70
Prepared Statement of........................................ 75
Statement of Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International
Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks........ 78
Prepared Statement of........................................ 80
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Opening Statement of Senator Ted Stevens......................... 89
Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska.... 90
Statement of Hon. Reggie Joule, Alaska State Representative...... 91
Prepared Statement of........................................ 93
Statement of George Ahmaogak, Sr., Mayor, North Slope Borough,
Barrow, Alaska................................................. 97
Prepared Statement of........................................ 100
Statement of Loretta Bullard, President, Kawerak, Inc............ 102
Prepared Statement of........................................ 104
Statement of Myron P. Naneng, Sr., President, Association of
Village Council Presidents..................................... 106
Prepared Statement of........................................ 108
Statement of Hugh Short, Mayor, Bethel, Alaska................... 115
Prepared Statement of........................................ 117
Statement of Edith A. Vorderstrasse, Mayor, Barrow, Alaska....... 118
Prepared Statement of........................................ 119
Statement of Steve Ivanoff, President, Unalakleet Native
Corporation.................................................... 119
Prepared Statement of........................................ 121
Statement of Rex Rock, Chief Executive Officer, Tikigaq
Corporation.................................................... 123
Prepared Statement of........................................ 125
Statement of Stanley Tom, Tribal Liaison, Newtok Traditional
Council........................................................ 129
Prepared Statement of........................................ 131
Statement of Enoch Adams, Jr., Chairman, Kivalina Relocation
Planning Committee............................................. 132
Statement of Luci Eningowuk, Chairperson, Shishmaref Erosion and
Relocation Coalition........................................... 133
Prepared Statement of........................................ 138
Statement of Franklin Rexford, Tribal Administrator, Native
Village of Kaktovik............................................ 147
Statement of Dr. Joseph Suhayda, Hydraulic Engineers, HESCO
Bastion USA, LLC, Hammond, Louisiana........................... 151
Prepared Statement of........................................ 155
HESCO and HESCO Products......................................... 155
HESCO Alaska..................................................... 156
Additional submitted statements.................................. 157
Prepared Statement of Thomas K. Bolen, Public Services Director,
Northwest Arctic Borough....................................... 157
Prepared Statement of John Duffy, Borough Manager, Matanuska-
Susitna Borough................................................ 158
ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE EROSION
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Anchorage, AK.
The committee met at 8:47 a.m., in the Z.J. Loussac Public
Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Ted
Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens and Burns.
Also present: Senators Murkowski and Sununu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Chairman Stevens. Good morning. I thank you all for
attending this field hearing. We begin this hearing now
regarding the impacts of coastal erosion and flooding on the
Native villages on the west coast of Alaska.
I'm joined here this morning by Senator Conrad Burns of
Montana. He's on the Appropriations Committee. Senator Lisa
Murkowski, my colleague, who serves on the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, the Environment and Public Works
Committee, the Indian Affairs Committee, and the Veterans
Affairs Committee, and Senator John Sununu who serves on the
Commerce Committee.
Your commitment to take time from your busy schedules to
attend these hearings illustrates a national interest on this
issue, and we will learn more about how severe erosion has
impacted Alaska and its people. The testimony from these
hearings will be useful in determining how to coordinate
responses and develop solutions to complex problems of erosion
and flooding in Alaska.
There will be three panels of witnesses at this hearing
today and tomorrow. Each panel will have multiple witnesses,
and to keep the hearing on schedule, I request that each
witness speak no more than 8 minutes. It's my intention to ask
the Senators to withhold their questions until we hear the
testimony of all the witnesses on each panel as they come
forward. Based on the number of witnesses today, each panel
will be allowed total time limits. Panel 1 is allowed 80
minutes; panel 2, 60 minutes; and panel 3, 40 minutes. I hope
that's acceptable.
Tomorrow we will hear from villagers from villages most
affected by coastal erosion and flooding as well as one witness
with commercial expertise in erosion prevention and mitigation.
These hearings will try to find whether we have any solutions
to the problems and have recommendations from the General
Accounting Office--let me back up. We will examine the findings
and recommendations of the General Accounting Office report on
the severe flooding and erosion problems faced in Native
villages in Alaska.
In May 2001 some of you attended the appropriations field
hearings on the impact of climate changes in the Arctic. That
hearing was held at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks and
attracted, I believe, the Nation's best scientists on the
climate change. Later today we'll hear from two individuals on
the potential costs and implications of that climate change.
The issue of climate change is involved because of rising
temperatures, which was one of the main factors theorized in
the GAO report on coastal erosion and flooding in Alaska. My
intent at these hearings is to learn how we can provide greater
assistance to these communities.
I will now yield to my colleagues to see if they have any
opening statements. Senator Burns, do you have a statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your
kind invitation to come to Alaska. We enjoy it up here. I
represent Montana. As far as flooding and erosion, we've been
so damn dry down there we'll take a little of it. We're a
little bit better off, but I know that there are challenges it
imposes on the communities along the coast of Alaska. I'm
fairly familiar with that part of the world up there because
I've visited the North Slope, but I've never had the
opportunity to go out on the west coast part of the State and
would love to do that one of these days. Thank you for your
kind invitation. I'll look forward to hearing from the
witnesses.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Murkowski, do you have a
statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you
for calling the hearings. I would also like to welcome Senator
Burns and Senator Sununu. I appreciate their being here and
having an opportunity to see what is going on. I appreciate
Senator Burns' statement, and we're pretty dry up north, too.
It's fire season again here.
Mr. Chairman, last year the General Accounting Office
examined the performance of two agencies, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service as
they assist Alaska Native villages wrestling with challenges of
coastal erosion.
The GAO reported that small and remote Alaskan villages are
denied assistance under the Corps' flood control and continuing
assistance program because they often fail to meet a cost-
benefit test; that is to say that when you compare the cost of
preventing devastating floods against the value of the public
infrastructure in the villages, flood control loses. Those
communities that might meet the cost-benefit analysis criteria
then fail to qualify for assistance because they can't provide
the 25/50 percent local match that's required under the
prevailing policy.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service, like the Corps,
utilizes a cost-benefit analysis in its funding decisions, but
unlike the Corps they consider social and environmental factors
when calculating the benefit of a project. The GAO noted that
the Natural Resources Conservation Service also waives cost-
sharing requirements when a community can't afford them.
The bad news for Alaska Native communities is that the
Natural Resources Conservation Service funding programs are
directed at addressing emergencies; in other words, one-time
events rather than recurring programs. However, the Natural
Resource Conservation Service is generous in providing
technical assistance to Alaska Native villages under its
conservation and technical assistance program.
So the Corps of Engineers appears to be in the best
position to help fund projects to protect our villages against
coastal erosion, but cannot effectively carry out this role due
to the strings attached to their funding policies. The Natural
Resource Conservation Service has a funding policy that is
perhaps more sensitive to the realities affecting our villages,
but their authority to address the consequences of coastal
erosion is limited. This is very disturbing.
Mr. Chairman, I do have a longer opening statement that I
would like to have included in its entirety in the record, but
I would like to point out at this time that I hope that these
hearings are not intended to place blame on anybody, but rather
to identify solutions. How do we move forward in identifying
the concerns while we're here in these next 2 days?
As we search for the solutions, I think we need to be aware
that FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has the
resources to rebuild that public infrastructure and to help
families rebuild structures that are destroyed in catastrophic
floods. We have seen this before when FEMA was called upon to
address the consequences of flooding in Alatna, in Allakaket
and in Hughes as they do elsewhere across the State and in the
country.
So I would hope that over the next 2 days, as we identify
ways to prevent this destruction before it happens, we focus on
that and not on what we do in the aftermath of a catastrophic
flood. Again, Senator Stevens, thank you for conducting this
hearing, and I look forward to the testimony over the next 2
days.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Sununu, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN SUNUNU, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to
be here with you and Senator Murkowski, with whom I was pleased
to be elected to the Senate. I had the opportunity to see her
work on this and a host of other issues important to Alaska.
New Hampshire and Alaska share a lot of the same wonderful
characteristics; a great love for the outdoors, conservation
and its tradition, and a beautiful coastline. New Hampshire's
coastline is only 13 miles, not 6,000 miles, so as a result, we
tend to enjoy our coastline 1 mile at a time. But we have the
same appreciation for the problems that erosion and flooding
can cause for the communities that live nearby.
That's why I'm pleased to be here to listen to the
testimony, to learn a lot more about the problems that have
been experienced here. I understand what the Senate can do to
help these agencies that have some ability to make a difference
and work together to improve the situation.
Thank you very much for the invitation to be here.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator Sununu. On
the first panel the witnesses will be Brigadier General Larry
Davis, Division Engineer, Pacific Ocean Division of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. John Pennington, Regional
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Mr. Ralph
A. Robinson, Managing Director of the Natural Resources
Environment of the General Accounting Office; and Mr. Patrick
Poe, Alaska's Regional Administrator for the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Gentlemen, welcome. General Davis, we'll call on you first.
I would like you all to present your statements and not use
more than 8 minutes, if you will, and we will have questions
when the full panel has presented their witnesses.
General Davis.
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT L. DAVIS,
DIVISION ENGINEER, PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION,
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ACCOMPANIED BY COLONEL TIM GALLAGHER, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS' ALASKA DISTRICT
General Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the committee. I deeply appreciate this opportunity
to appear before you to discuss the flooding and erosion issues
affecting many Alaskan communities.
I'm Brigadier General Larry Davis, the Commanding General
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Pacific Ocean Division.
Accompanying me today is Colonel Tim Gallagher, Commander of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Alaska District. My complete
written statement, which I have submitted for the record,
provides details on this important issue and what the Alaska
District is doing to address flooding and erosion issues and
challenges.
With your permission, I'll provide you with a very brief
overview of the Pacific Ocean Division, highlight some major
issues regarding flooding and erosion affecting Alaskan
communities, and highlight the Corps of Engineers' authorities
and programs.
The Pacific Ocean Division is headquartered in Honolulu,
Hawaii. I have four district offices under my command located
in Hawaii, Alaska, Japan, and Korea. All my districts have
important military missions. In addition, my Honolulu and
Alaska districts have a civil works mission that provides for
water resources development and restoration, primarily in the
areas of commercial navigation, flood and coastal storm damage
reduction, and ecosystem restoration.
It is through our Alaska District's civil works program
that we are keenly aware of and involved in addressing flooding
and erosion problems affecting Alaskan communities, and we
appreciated the opportunity to participate in and contribute
data from our past and ongoing studies to GAO's December 2003
report on this subject.
Alaska's coasts and riverbanks serve as the home to over
200 Alaskan communities that utilize the rivers, coastal
waters, and surrounding areas for subsistence. Coastal areas
are subject to constant attack from wave action, ocean
currents, ice and storms. And riverbanks are subjected to
flooding, annual and episodic ice jams and erosion.
The flooding and erosion that occurs along Alaska's
shorelines and riverbanks can have a devastating impact on the
economic, social, and cultural well-being of the Alaskan
communities that are located along them. The villages of
Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok and Shishmaref are examples of
communities that are being forced to consider relocating due to
severe and chronic erosion and flooding.
Recently the Alaska District has noted an increasing number
of requests for flooding and erosion protection assistance.
This increase appears to be timed similar to observed
climatological changes that may have an impact on flooding
frequencies and erosion rates.
Chairman Stevens. I think it may be one of the connections
right here causing the trouble.
General Davis. As indicated in the GAO's report, the Corps
of Engineers administers key programs for planning and
constructing flood and erosion control projects. These programs
include our Specifically Authorized Program, Continuing
Authorities Program, Planning Assistance to States Program, and
the Flood Plain Management Services Program. To date, we have
constructed eight flood control and eight erosion control
projects in Alaska, and we currently have nine active flood
damage reduction and 11 active erosion control studies
underway. While we do have the technical capabilities and
programs to address flooding and erosion problems, it is often
difficult for a majority of these small and remote communities
to meet the benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.0 or greater required
for Federal participation implementing a solution. The cost of
construction in the remote areas, weather and the lack of data,
and the subsistence economies of the communities are major
contributing factors.
In addition, many of these communities do not have the
financial capability to meet the required 35 percent non-
Federal cost sharing required for the Corps of Engineers'
flood-erosion projects. We like to think of ourselves as
problem solvers, and we have the technology and experience to
find solutions to these complex problems. However, the title of
the GAO's report, ``Alaska Native Villages, Most are Affected
by Flooding and Erosion, But Few Qualify For Federal
Assistance,'' appropriately summarizes the dilemma faced by
these Alaskan communities and the Federal agencies attempting
to help them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I'm honored to
appear before you. I'd be happy to respond to any questions you
may have.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General Robert L. Davis
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss erosion and flooding
issues of utmost importance to coastal and riverine communities in
Alaska.
I am Brigadier General Larry Davis, Commander of U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Pacific Ocean Division.
The General Accounting Office has provided a comprehensive review
of the erosion and flooding problems in many of the remote communities
of the state. I hope that our participation in this hearing will add to
and clarify some of the issues presented in this report.
With your permission, I will provide you with a brief overview of
the Pacific Ocean Division, review our Corps of Engineers' flood
control and erosion authorities and programs, review our prior and
ongoing flood and erosion control projects, and highlight the major
issues regarding flooding and erosion affecting Alaskan communities.
PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION
The Pacific Ocean Division is headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. I
have four district offices under my command located in Hawaii, Alaska,
Japan, and Korea. All my districts have important Military Missions. In
addition, my Honolulu and Alaska Districts have a Civil Works Mission
that provides for water resources development and restoration,
primarily in the areas of commercial navigation, flood and coastal
storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration.
It is through our Alaska District's Civil Works program that we are
keenly aware of and involved in addressing flooding and erosion
problems affecting Alaskan communities and we appreciated the
opportunity to participate in and contribute data from our past and
ongoing studies to GAO's December 2003 report on this subject.
ALASKA FLOODING AND EROSION
Alaska's coasts and riverbanks serve as the home to over 200
Alaskan communities that utilize the rivers, coastal waters, and
surrounding areas for subsistence. Coastal areas are subject to
constant attack from wave action, ocean currents, ice and storms and
riverbanks are subjected to flooding, annual and episodic ice jams, and
erosion.
The flooding and erosion that occurs along Alaska's shorelines and
riverbanks can have a devastating impact on the economic, social, and
cultural well-being of the Alaskan communities that are located along
them. The villages of Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref are
examples of communities that are being forced to consider relocating
due to severe and chronic erosion and flooding.
Recently the Alaska District has noted an increasing number of
requests for flooding and erosion protection assistance. This increase
appears to be timed similar to observed climatological changes that may
have an impact on flooding frequencies and erosion rates.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS AUTHORITIES
The Corps of Engineers has several authorities to address flooding
and erosion problems. They include specific Congressional
authorization, the Continuing Authorities Program, the Planning
Assistance to States Program, and the Flood Plain Management Services
Program.
In addressing flooding and erosion problems, the Corps works
closely with local, state, Federal, tribal, and private interests to
understand the concerns represented by these various stakeholders. The
Corps weighs the concerns, balances the needs, and examines the costs
and benefits to determine federal interest and to make technically,
environmentally, socially, economically sound decisions.
Specifically Authorized
Specifically authorized studies may be initiated as provided by the
Rivers and Harbors in Alaska Study Resolution, adopted by the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on Public Works on December 2, 1970.
Construction of a project studied under this authority does, however,
require specific Congressional construction authorization. Non-Federal
cost sharing requirements are 50 percent for feasibility studies, 25
percent for preconstruction engineering and design, and 35 percent for
construction of flooding and erosion projects.
The 1946 Shore Protection Cost Sharing Act established Federal
policy to participate in construction of projects to protect the
publicly-owned or publicly used shores of the United States against
erosion from waves and currents.
Continuing Authorities Program
The Continuing Authorities Program authorizes the Corps of
Engineers to plan, design, and construct erosion and flood control
projects without additional and specific congressional authorization.
Most of the Alaska District's erosion and flood control work has been
conducted under one of the authorities in the Continuing Authorities
Program (CAP). CAP authorities are funded nationwide and are subject to
specific limits on allowable Federal expenditures. The applicable
program authorities that address flooding and erosion include the
following.
--Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended.--This
authorizes emergency stream bank and shoreline erosion
protection for public facilities subject to a Federal limit of
$1,000,000 per project and $15,000,000 nationwide per year.
Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is 35 percent.
--Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended.--This
authorizes small flood control projects subject to a Federal
limit of $7,000,000 per project and $50,000,000 nationwide per
year. Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is 35 percent.
--Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, as amended.--This
authorizes snagging and clearing for flood control subject to a
Federal limit of $500,000 per project and $7,500,000 nationwide
per year. Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is 35 percent.
--Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, as amended.--This
authorizes protection of shores of publicly owned property from
hurricane and storm damage subject to a Federal limit of
$3,000,0000 per project and $30,000,000 nationwide per year.
Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is 35 percent.
--Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968, as amended.--This
authorizes mitigation of shoreline erosion damage cause by
Federal navigation projects subject to a Federal limit of
$5,000,0000. Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is at the
same proportion as the associated Federal navigation project.
Planning Assistance to States
The Corps' Planning Assistance to States program allows the Corps
to assist states in the preparation of comprehensive plans for the
development, utilization, and conservation of water and related
resources of drainage basins. This may include consideration of
flooding and erosion problems. There is no construction authority
associated with this program. Annual Federal funding is limited to
$500,000 per state or tribe. Non-Federal cost sharing requirement is 50
percent.
Floodplain Management Services Program
The Corps' Flood Plain Management Services Program allows the
Corps' to provide states and local governments with technical services
and planning guidance on all aspects of flood plain management
planning. There is no construction authority associated with this
program. Non-Federal public entities do not have to pay for these
services.
Other Authorities
Other Corps of Engineers' authorities that exist include the
following.
--Technical Assistance--Section 55, WRDA 74.--This authority allows
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, to provide technical and engineering assistance to
non-Federal public interests in developing structural and non-
structural methods of preventing damages attributable to shore
and stream bank erosion. Section 55 provides no construction
authority. Non-Federal cost sharing is not required.
--Tribal Partnership Program--Section 203, WRDA 2000.--This program
authorizes feasibility studies of water resource projects that
will ``substantially benefit Indian tribes and that are located
primarily within Indian country or in proximity to Alaska
Native villages.'' Section 203 has a $5,000,000 annual program
limit and allows no more than $1,000,000 for one Indian tribe.
The program provides no construction authority. Non-Federal
cost sharing requirement is 50 percent for feasibility studies.
prior flood and erosion control studies and projects
To date, the Alaska District has received 63 requests for
assistance with flooding and erosion problems from 60 communities in
Alaska. Recently the number of requests for assistance with flooding,
storm damage and erosion problems have increased. Of the 63 total
requests, 47 have come within the last 5 years.
We have constructed eight flood control (7-Specifically Authorized
and 1-Section 205) and eight erosion control projects (4-
Congressionally Authorized and 4-Section 14) in Alaska at 14
communities.
Section 14 Projects
The majority of the requests for action for river erosion or
coastal storm damage have come in under the Section 14 Emergency Stream
Bank and Shore Protection Authority. Forty of the 63 community requests
were for assistance under the Section 14 authority. This emergency
authority authorizes the Corps to protect essential public facilities
that face an imminent erosion threat. The proposed protection project
must cost less than it would cost to relocate the facilities to be
protected. This authority differs from other Corps programs, because a
least-cost analysis is performed, rather than a benefit cost analysis
as is required in other programs.
Despite the number of requests, we have only constructed four
projects (Bethel, Deering, Emmonak, and Metlakatla) under the Section
14 authority. More than half of the Section 14 requests resulted in no
Federal project because relocation of the threatened structure was the
least cost solution or the property at risk was private property. Other
reasons include project costs exceeding the project or program funding
limits and the financial inability of the community to provide the
required 35 percent non-Federal cost share.
Congressionally Authorized Projects
We have constructed seven flood control and four erosion projects
through specific Congressional authorization.
Alaska's largest flood control projects are the Chena River Lakes
and Tanana River projects that protect the 70,000 residents of the City
of Fairbanks and have prevented millions of dollars in flood damages.
These projects were specifically authorized by Congress in the Flood
Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-483.
Other projects include erosion control structures in communities
like Bethel, Homer, and Galena and flood control structures in Seward
(Lowell Creek Tunnel), Skagway, Hyder (Salmon River), Talkeetna, and
Juneau (Gold Creek).
CURRENT STUDIES AND PROJECTS
The Alaska District is currently has 9 active flood damage
reduction and 11 active erosion control studies and projects underway.
They include the following.
Barrow Storm Damage Reduction
The Alaska District's largest coastal storm damage reduction study
is underway at Barrow located about 725 miles north of Anchorage,
Alaska. In recent years winter storms have caused severe erosion of the
shoreline. The erosion is threatening numerous public facilities; of
particular concern is the Barrow solid waste landfill. Ongoing studies
will obtain the environmental and engineering data necessary to plan
and design alternative plans to reduce the storm damage. Fieldwork is
currently underway to identify local sources of gravel that could be
used to construct various alternatives including the replenishment of
beach materials.
Kaktovik Erosion and Flooding
A reconnaissance study at Kaktovik about 650 miles north of
Anchorage has identified erosion and flooding of the airport as an
important concern that will be addressed by another agency. Erosion of
gravesites and lands at Kaktovik is a continuing problem that may
warrant further study if a cost-sharing sponsor can be identified.
Kenai River Bluff Erosion
The Kenai River is located approximately 100 miles south of
Anchorage, Alaska. Erosion of the bluff along the Kenai River is
endangering both public and private facilities. As directed and with
funds provided by Congress in fiscal year 2002 and 2003, we initiated
and are continuing technical evaluations and reconnaissance level
investigations of the bank stabilization needs along the Lower Kenai
River. Further study will depend on the findings of these
investigations and the prospect for developing a solution that is
environmentally acceptable and supported by sound engineering designs.
Matanuska Watershed
The Matanuska River is 77 miles long and originates in the Chugach
and Talkeetna Mountains and empties into the Knik Arm of Upper Cook
Inlet, approximately 40 miles east of Anchorage, Alaska. With funds
provided by Congress in fiscal year 2002, we initiated reconnaissance
phase investigations to evaluate potential solutions to the erosion
problems along the Matanuska River. The Matanuska Watershed
reconnaissance study identified riverbank erosion as an important
problem to address in the feasibility stage of study. Local interests
are working with the Corps to develop the scope and estimated costs for
engineering, economic, and environmental studies that would be
appropriate for a feasibility study.
McGrath Flood Damage Reduction
McGrath is located in western Alaska approximately 225 miles
northwest of Anchorage, Alaska and serves as the transportation and
service center for the surrounding area. Located on a bend of the upper
Kuskokwim River, McGrath is often subject to flood damages and erosion.
The water supply treatment plant and important roads, businesses, and
residences are in danger during high flow conditions. With funds
provided by Congress in fiscal year 2003, we initiated reconnaissance
studies, which are scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2004.
Skagway River Flood Control
Skagway is located at the northernmost end of Taiya Inlet,
approximately 90 miles northeast of Juneau, Alaska. Much of the old
City of Skagway is located within the Klondike Gold Rush National
Historic Park. An existing flood control project was completed by the
Corps of Engineers in 1940 and consists of a 6,700-foot long dike on
the east bank of the Skagway River and a rubble-mound containment
structure 1,800 feet long across the tide flats. With funds provided by
Congress in fiscal year 2002, we initiated reconnaissance phase
investigations to evaluate Federal interest in modifications and
improvements to the existing dike and containment structure to prevent
flooding to the historic City of Skagway and the airport facilities.
The reconnaissance report was completed in November 2003 and found that
there is Federal interest in continuing with feasibility phase studies.
Yakutat Flooding
Yakutat is located approximately 370 miles southeast of Anchorage,
Alaska. With fund provided by Congress in fiscal year 2004, we are
initiating reconnaissance phase investigations to determine Federal
interest in flood damage protection from flooding hazards created by
the Hubbard Glacier near Yakutat. The Hubbard Glacier is advancing
across Russel Fjord where the glacier has created an ice dam twice in
the past 20 years. If an ice dam occurs, the water level in Russel
Fjord could raise high enough to overflow into the Situk River similar
to the overflows that have occurred at least twice in the last few
hundred years. The Corps is cooperating with the U.S. Forest Service,
state agencies and the city of Yakutat to evaluate potential ways to
reduce damages to the world class Situk River fishery and nearby
infrastructure including the Yakutat airport. A reconnaissance report
will summarize the evaluation of alternatives that has occurred and
determine if a Federal interest exists for more detailed studies.
Bethel Bank Stabilization, Alaska
Bethel is located at the mouth of the Kuskokwim River, 40 miles
inland from the Bering Sea and approximately 400 air miles northwest of
Anchorage, Alaska. In accordance with Congressional direction provided
in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development Act, we initiated
engineering activities, from within available funds, to extend the
existing Bethel Bank Stabilization project an additional 1,200 feet.
Congress also directed the removal of sediments from Brown Slough that
hamper navigation. However, it was determined that the Corps does not
have authority for the removal of sediments from Brown Slough. The
project decision document was completed in December 2001 and the
Project Cooperation Agreement was executed in December 2002. The local
sponsor is continuing with required real estate acquisition and
construction.
Dillingham Bank Stabilization, Alaska
Dillingham is located approximately 330 miles southwest of
Anchorage, Alaska. The Dillingham Bank Stabilization project provides
1,600 feet of sheet pile bulkhead to protect water and sewer lines,
communication systems, homes, and businesses along an eroding bluff in
the City of Dillingham. A Project Cooperation Agreement was executed in
January 1998 and a construction contract was awarded in September 1998.
Construction was initiated in fiscal year 1999 and was completed in
fiscal year 2001. As directed by Congress in the fiscal year 2001
Energy and Water Development Act, we initiated work to extend the
project and replace the existing wooden bulkhead at the city dock. In
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 we are continuing with
preparations of plans and specifications, a project decision document,
and negotiations for modifications to the existing Project Cooperation
Agreement.
Galena Bank Stabilization, Alaska
Galena is located on the north bank of the Yukon River, 270 air
miles west of Fairbanks, Alaska. In accordance with Congressional
direction and funds provided in the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water
Development Act, we initiated engineering activities to provide
additional emergency bank stabilization measures at Galena. The work
will be accomplished under the same terms and conditions as the
previous emergency bank stabilization project that was completed in
1987. Stream bank survey work was completed in the summer of fiscal
year 2001. In fiscal year 2002, we worked on plans and specifications,
a project decision document, and negotiations for the Project
Cooperation Agreement. The Project Cooperation Agreement was executed
in August 2003. Construction is scheduled for award this fiscal year.
Planning Assistance to States
The Corps' Planning Assistance to the States authority is being
used at Kivalina and Newtok in western Alaska to assist each community
with plans to relocate so they can avoid serious erosion and flooding
problems. Comprehensive community plans are being developed for the new
village sites. Due to the lack of existing infrastructure to offload
gravel, it has been a challenge to find low cost sources of gravel for
constructing pads to prevent permafrost soils from melting under new
buildings and for elevating structures above potential flood
elevations.
Alaska Village Erosion Technical Analysis
As directed by Congress in fiscal year 2004, we initiated the
Alaska Village Erosion Technical Analysis studies for the villages of
Shishmaref, Kivalina, Newtok, Unalakleet, Kaktovik, Bethel, and
Dillingham. A programmatic environmental impact analysis is being done
for the potential relocation of Shishmaref based on specific guidance
received from Congress. The studies at each village will estimate the
damages caused by erosion, evaluate the potential ways to relocate
communities that cannot be economically protected, and estimate when
any of these villages would no longer be able to function due to losses
caused by erosion and flooding.
Continuing Authorities Program
Under the Continuing Authorities Program, Alaska District has the
following projects underway.
Deering
Deering is located on Kotzebue Sound at the mouth of the Inmachuk
River, 57 miles southwest of Kotzebue. It is built on a flat sand and
gravel spit 300 feet wide and a half-mile long. Storm waves and high
water threaten cultural resources along the village shoreline. In July
of 2002 remains were uncovered by wave action during a storm. A state
trooper visited the village to perform an on site inspection and made
the determination that the remains were of ancient origin.
Archaeologists from the Northern Land Use Research excavated a portion
of the site to further verify that the remains were of human remains
from ancient origin. We are currently investigating the erosion problem
under the Section 14 authority to determine if there is a design
solution that would cost less than performing an archaeological dig to
preserve the site.
Kwethluk
Kwethluk is located along the banks of Kwethluk River on its
junction with the Kuskokwim River, approximately 12 air miles east of
Bethel and 390 air miles northwest of Anchorage. The existing
streambank protection is in need of repair at both the upstream and
downstream ends of the project. Erosion has created a hole
approximately 7 feet high and 6-10 feet deep. The overhanging concrete
is posing a threat to children who might be playing in the area. The
stream bank adjacent to the city is also in need of protection. It has
a 7-foot vertical bank in highly erosive soils that extend
approximately 1 mile along the city limits. An analysis of the erosion
rates along the Kwethluk River is needed to insure an appropriate long-
term solution to the stream bank problem. There is no work being
performed this year due to budget limits for the Section 14 authority
for this fiscal year. We will request funding for work next year under
the Section 14 authority.
Seward
Seward is located on Resurrection Bay, on the east coast of Kenai
Peninsula, 125 highway miles south of Anchorage. The Seward Marine
Industrial Center (SMIC) site is located on the east side of
Resurrection Bay at the south end of the SMIC bulkhead. Wave action has
eroded the gravel fill material near the end of the bulkhead. Wave
action continues to erode the gravel from behind the bridge sections
and along the remaining unprotected shoreline. We are currently
investigating the erosion problem under the Section 14 authority and
are developing a design solution to protect the utilities in this area
from the erosion.
Shishmaref
Shishmaref is located on Sarichef Island, in the Chukchi Sea, just
north of the Bering Strait. It is five miles from the mainland, 126
miles north of Nome and 100 miles southwest of Kotzebue. A fall storm
has caused increased erosion along the beach shore threatening several
public interests, including the public school. A Report recommending
construction of a layered rock revetment 230 lineal feet in length has
been approved. A Section 14 Project Cooperation Agreement is currently
being developed. Federal construction funds are available with the
intent of initiating construction by the end of the fiscal year 2004.
Point Hope
Point Hope is located near the tip of Point Hope peninsula, a large
gravel spit that forms the western-most extension of the northwest
Alaska coast, approximately 710 miles northwest of Anchorage. With a
mean sea level elevation of only 14 feet, wind driven storm surge and
flooding impacts the village from all directions of the compass. During
flooding events, the only escape route to high grounds is one of the
first things to be inundated. This road is in dire need of being raised
and fortified. The flooding also is damaging significant cultural
resources located along the shore. We are currently investigating the
erosion problem under the Section 103 authority to determine if there
is a design solution that would be eligible for Federal participation.
Fort Yukon
Fort Yukon is located in the interior region of Alaska on the north
bank of the Yukon River near its confluence with the Porcupine River.
Fort Yukon lies about 8 miles north of the Arctic Circle and 140 miles
northeast of Fairbanks. The city is located immediately upstream of the
confluence of the Yukon and Porcupine Rivers. These rivers carry large
amounts of breakup ice in the spring and periodically an ice jam is
created at the confluence of the two rivers. Ice jams at this location
often result in an elevated river stage, which floods the low-lying
areas at Fort Yukon. Floods are also caused by coincident increases in
river stages due to surges in snowmelt runoff. We are currently
investigating the erosion problem under the Section 205 authority to
determine if there is a design solution that would be eligible for
Federal participation. The community of Fort Yukon has indicated they
would participate as the non-Federal sponsor for the study currently
being scoped.
Valdez
Valdez is located on the north shore of Port Valdez, a deepwater
fjord in Prince William Sound, approximately 305 road miles east of
Anchorage. Glacier Stream has been narrowed to pass under a bridge at
the Richardson Highway. This created a flooding problem in the stream
and threatens the Richardson Highway and Glacier Stream Road. We are
currently investigating the erosion problem under the Section 205
authority to determine if there is a design solution that would be
eligible for Federal participation.
CHALLENGES
While the Corps of Engineers does have the technical capabilities,
authorities, and programs to address flooding and erosions problems, it
is often difficult for the majority of these small and remote
communities to meet the benefit to cost ratio of 1.0 or greater
required for Federal participation in implementing a solution. The cost
of construction in remote areas, weather, lack of data, and the
subsistence economies of the communities are major contributing
factors.
In addition, while some of these communities can meet the
requirement for 35 percent non Federal cost sharing, many do not have
the financial capability to cost share.
High Cost Environment
The cost of building flood and erosion prevention structures is
much higher in remote Alaska than at similar situations in the
contiguous United States. Commercial sources of construction material,
equipment, trained labor, supplies, support facilities and fuel are
very limited in the remote regions of Alaska. Modes of transportation
are usually limited to shallow draft barge or air transport. These are
costly. The construction season is effectively limited to five or six
months due to the extreme weather conditions. Environmental constraints
also limit when work can be performed. The most common are restrictions
to in-water work and limitations to armor rock extraction activities.
These factors drive the cost of construction up.
Many of the communities mentioned in the GAO report are in the
Yukon-Kuskokwim delta region (Western Alaska). In the 21,000 square
mile area of the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta region, commercial sources for
rock are very limited and costly (key material in most bank
stabilization projects). Larger, high quality rock is only available at
a couple of places, Cape Nome or Saint Paul, both of which are far away
and have limited production capacity and transportation options. In
some instances it has been more cost effective to barge material from
Washington State. Commercial gravel sources are also very limited and
typically must be barged into a site from 100 to 150 miles away.
There is some potential for developing local sources of material
but the price will often be equivalent to the cost of the nearest
commercial source (that may be several hundred miles away) plus
transportation. Contractors using these sources are risking the cost to
bring in equipment to develop an unknown quantity and quality of
material. This risk is reflected in their bids.
Construction equipment is typically not available in remote areas
and has to be barged into the site. Most transportation of equipment
occurs by barge during very limited shipping seasons. If the equipment
does not make the last barge before freeze-up it will sit idle (and may
be vandalized) all winter. It is often six months or more until the
next barge can make it to the site. Mobilization costs approach a half
a million dollars on small-scale bank stabilization projects. Barge
access may not be available, in which case the equipment must be walked
cross-country in winter. This is a costly high-risk operation for a
contractor.
Trained labor, and the supplies and accommodations for labor are in
short supply or do not exist in remote areas. Construction camps, with
food and supplies shipped in, are the norm. They are costly.
Fuel often needs to be shipped in as well. Many communities in
remote areas barge in only as much fuel as can be stored and that they
can afford to buy in the fall before the rivers and inlets freeze. Fuel
supplies may be very limited in the spring. To get an early start on
the limited construction season, contractors may arrive in an area in
early spring and find limited fuel and the next fuel barge is not
scheduled until June when the river is navigable. These contractors
often resort to flying their fuel in on small planes, 150 to 200
gallons at a time. Larger deliveries are not possible given the size of
the airports associated with these communities. Gasoline in Shishmaref
currently costs over $5.00 a gallon.
When a piece of equipment breaks down it may require a week to get
parts out of Anchorage or Seattle. If the personnel at the site cannot
repair the equipment, a mechanic may have to be flown to the site to
perform the repair.
The expense of construction in much of Alaska is directly related
to the remoteness of the sites. This translates into high cost for
transportation, materials and labor and a premium for the high risk
associated with constructing the project. All of these items are
reflected in the limited number of bids received on a project.
Local Economy
Of the authorities that the Corps of Engineers has to address
flooding and erosion problems in Alaskan Native communities, all
require cost sharing by the local sponsor. While some communities are
financially capable, many of the small communities do not have the
ability to cost share even the small Section 14 projects that require a
local cost share of 35 percent. Their economies are not wholly cash-
based, so local governments have a very limited tax base. Many of these
communities have a high percentage of the population living ``below the
poverty level.'' These communities have a subsistence economy that is
often more robust than the cash economy measured and evaluated by the
National Census. There are many healthy and socially fulfilled people
in these communities living ``below the poverty level.''
Other sources of funds for the required local cost share have been
difficult to obtain. Communities have applied for Community Block
Development Grant (CBDG) funds toward construction of erosion control
projects, but they were unsuccessful. In recent years, the District's
only cost-shared erosion control projects are in Barrow, Bethel, and
Homer, all large hub communities that have financial resources, and
Shishmaref--where the school district has obtained funds from the State
to preserve the school infrastructure. Our other erosion control
projects, Dillingham and Galena, were specifically authorized by
Congress at 100 percent federal expense.
Data Collection
The Corps of Engineers is uniquely positioned to provide ongoing
support to communities in danger of flooding, coastal erosion and other
natural disasters. For example, the Floodplain Management Services work
performed by the Alaska District provides technical assistance to many
communities at risk to flooding. This program helps record maximum high
water marks in many areas that are affected by both high flow stage and
ice jam flooding. These records correlate with engineering work to
define real world flood levels for many communities.
However, there are still significant flooding and coastal data gaps
throughout Alaska. Little historical or detailed data exists for the
coastal areas north of the Aleutian Islands and in most remote areas.
The lack of reliable data can result in higher costs for flooding and
erosion solutions because designers must be conservative when working
with little or no data. Long term and reliable data collection and
modeling are essential to help designers to provide more cost-effective
designs, and to develop a better understanding of hazards that exist
for these communities.
Both the east and west coasts of the contiguous United States have
benefited from regional coastal studies that have developed design data
and models for extreme storm events and typical yearly wave climates.
These types of data collection studies and models are necessary and
essential for the State of Alaska, which has over half of the total
national coastline.
CONCLUSION
We like to think of ourselves as problem solvers and we have the
technology and experience to find solutions to these complex problems.
However, the title of the GAO's report, ``Alaska Native Villages, Most
Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal
Assistance,'' appropriately summarizes the dilemma faced by these
Alaskan communities and the federal agencies attempting to help them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my portion of our testimony, and I am
again honored to appear before you.
At this time, I am prepared to respond to any questions you or the
Committee may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Aleutians East Borough
NELSON LAGOON EROSION CONTROL PROJECT
Nelson Lagoon, like some other coastal communities in Alaska, has
an erosion problem. Climate change is blamed for the lack of
protection, in that in the past the ice pack protected the community's
shoreline during severe winter storms. The warming trend of the last
10-15 years has eliminated the ice pack and exposed the shoreline
throughout the winter seasons. Last winter alone, more than four feet
of beach was lost. Residents further speculate that the Alaska
Department of Transportation's excavation of beach sand in another
location on the spit (for airport construction) accentuated the
problem. Regardless of cause, approximately one mile of shoreline at
the community's doorstep is rapidly eroding and ten homes are at risk.
In 1986, a contractor came in to ``fix'' the erosion problem using
gabion baskets filled with rocks. However, the rocks were too small
with respect to the size of the gabion mesh and the rocks fell out,
were scattered along the beach by wave activity and were eventually
washed away.
In addition to the unprotected section of shoreline, another
``seawall''--a wooden barrier that ran in front of several homes along
the beach--is not working. Nelson Lagoon has a normal tidal range of
approximately 18 feet, with storms the tides are in the range of 20-22
feet. Because the wooden barrier has no weight and is not anchored, it
floats during high tides and during storms the waves simply roll over
it. Thus, while it was originally intended to dissipate waves before
they reach the shore, it is not effective.
Residents of one house along the beach have, in desperation,
attempted to fashion their own erosion control. The fisherman head of
house gathered rocks from an unknown location outside the community and
filled a series of old plastic fish totes with rocks, bolting them
together for stability. The makeshift ``seawall'' is approximately six
feet wide by fifteen feet long. It is crude but apparently effective.
This makeshift solution might be suggested for other homes along the
beach, except that Nelson Lagoon has no source of rock and fish totes
are not affordable for every household.
The Aleutians East Borough has received $100,000 of Coastal Impact
Assistance Program grant funds to provide a demonstration erosion
control project. The project combines local labor and equipment with a
new technology called ``Geotubes''. This summer 400 feet of sand-filled
fabric tubes will be placed along the beach in Nelson Lagoon in an
engineered position. The site has been surveyed and will be surveyed
again one year and two years after the Geotubes are in place to
determine effectiveness. This successful project will provide a model
of erosion control that may be adopted or adapted by other coastal
communities and used more extensively in Nelson Lagoon. If
unsuccessful, the report will document the failure of the Geotubes for
other considering their options for erosion control.
The Aleutians East Borough requests continued support for
identifying areas and causes of erosion in Nelson Lagoon and evaluating
the Geotube Project and other erosion control options.
Chairman Stevens. Our next witness is John Pennington,
Regional Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
John, good morning.
STATEMENT OF JOHN PENNINGTON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, U.S.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ACCOMPANIED BY CARL COOK, DIVISION DIRECTOR, FLOOD INSURANCE MITIGATION
DIVISION, U.S. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Pennington. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the committee. Thank you for inviting us here this morning.
I'm John Pennington, the Regional Director of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Region 10, located in Bothell, Washington. Our four
States incorporate areas of Alaska, Idaho, Washington, and
Oregon. On behalf of FEMA and the Department of Homeland
Security, we welcome and appreciate the invitation to appear
today before the Committee on Appropriations. It is a distinct
honor and privilege to be here.
With me today is Carl Cook, who is our Division Director
for our Flood Insurance Mitigation Division. He's available to
answer any technical questions as it relates to FEMA policy. As
you well know, FEMA is the lead Federal agency responsible for
coordinating disaster response, recovery, and mitigation
efforts following the disasters and emergencies that are
declared by the President.
STAFFORD ACT ASSISTANCE
Our programs are made available to communities through our
State partner organizations, and in this State it is the Alaska
Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. They
are intended to supplement the response activities and recovery
programs of States. The programs are authorized by the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
commonly referred to as the Stafford Act. The Stafford Act is
widely known as the authority by which programs are made
available following disaster declarations.
There is a myriad of assistances available under the
Stafford Act, and I'd like to point out a couple of them that I
think would be of interest to you. First, the Public Assistance
Program, which provides assistance for the restoration of
public and certain private nonprofit facilities that are
damaged by an event, as well as the reimbursement of costs
associated with emergency protective measures and debris
removal.
The second program is Individual Assistance, which helps
individuals and families ensure their essential needs are met
after disasters and that they can begin the often long road to
successful recovery.
The third and fourth mitigation programs; the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program, which I'll discuss in detail in a
moment, as well as the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, which
is authorized under the Stafford Act.
FEMA's programs are primarily designed to assist States and
communities in carrying out their responsibilities and their
priorities. Our assistance is available in varying forms, such
as grants, as well as in both technical and planning
assistance.
Before I get into the area of programs, I think it's
interesting to point out that the success of FEMA, both in this
region and nationwide, is really built on our partnerships in
the State, tribal, and private sectors. In this State we have
been very fortunate to deal with the Alaska Division of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management, in particular,
Commissioner Campbell--General Craig Campbell, and Dave
Liebersbach, who is the Director of the Alaska Division of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management. We have forged what
can only be described as a very strong professional working
relationship with them and we feel really fortunate to have
them as a partner.
Considering the subject of ``Alaska Native Villages
Affected by Flooding and Erosion,'' I'm going to focus on three
of our programs that I believe can be available to the State of
Alaska and the Native villages in their efforts to address the
complex challenges of flooding and erosion.
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION PROGRAM
First, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. It was
authorized by Congress under the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000, which was signed on October 30 of that year. This program
is available to communities through the State emergency
management organizations and is designed to fund the most
competitive mitigation projects and planning efforts of States
and communities, as are identified and prioritized in State and
local mitigation plans. The development and adoption of these
State and local mitigation plans is required under the Stafford
Act as a result of the legislative amendments of 2000.
Funding for this competitive grant program is not triggered
by a Presidential Disaster Declaration, rather it is funded
through the annual appropriations process. All States and
communities throughout the Nation that have FEMA-approved
mitigation plans are eligible to apply for the program.
Accordingly, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program will help
sustain an enhanced national mitigation effort year to year, as
opposed to previous years when FEMA mitigation assistance was
generally only available after a disaster declaration has taken
place.
Examples of projects funded under the program include the
development of all hazard mitigation plans, seismic
retrofitting of critical public buildings, and acquisition or
relocation of flood-prone properties located in the floodplain,
just to name a few. All projects submitted are developed at the
State or local level, must be cost-effective, and are approved
following a nationally competitive peer-review process.
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
Second is our Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. It's
available to States and communities following Presidential
Disaster Declarations. It's quite similar to the Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Program just described, though it is only available
after a disaster declaration and is available only for the
State in which the declaration was made. Further, the amount of
assistance available under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
is a percentage of FEMA's assistance made available under the
response and recovery programs, specifically 7.5 percent of the
total projected expenditures for the disaster grants.
Essentially, the greater the losses an affected State incurs,
the greater the hazard mitigation assistance available.
As with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, all projects
are developed at the State or local level, need to be cost
effective, and are recommended by the State in accordance with
the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. Again, examples of projects
funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program include the
development of all hazard mitigation plans, the seismic
retrofitting, et cetera.
FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Third, FEMA's Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. It is
authorized for mitigating structures insured by the National
Flood Insurance Program within a community participating in
that particular program. Projects include the elevation,
relocation, and acquisition of flood-prone structures. Because
this program is funded by monies collected from policyholders,
the recent focus of the program has been on mitigating
repetitive loss structures in order to reduce the drain on the
actual fund itself. Repetitive loss structures are defined as
those insured structures where two or more insurance claims
have been filed in any 10-year period.
There are two important points that I'd like to bring to
the committee's attention. One--and this is regarding the Flood
Mitigation Assistance Program. One, many of the remote Alaskan
communities vulnerable to flooding and erosion are not
currently in areas mapped for flood hazards and are not
participating in the NFIP, which is a requirement for
consideration under the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program.
Second, in fiscal year 1998, $600,000 of assistance was
actually provided to Shishmaref under the Flood Mitigation
Assistance Program for bank protection and the elevation and
relocation of approximately nine residences. This assistance
was provided, however, prior to the policy change that required
all projects to be targeted at NFIP repetitive loss structures.
In summary, FEMA may provide assistance to Alaskan Native
villages affected by flooding and erosion primarily in the
areas of mitigation planning and project grants. I will ensure
that our mitigation staff will certainly do anything that it
can in the areas of PDM, HMGP and NFIP to accomplish that.
What I'd like to leave with you is--and I think Senator
Murkowski's comments are very appropriate--that a lot of times
FEMA does come in afterwards, and I think we are limited by the
Stafford Act in so many cases. But if something does occur in
those communities, rest assured that we are there to implement
the full breadth of the Stafford Act, its policies and programs
to ensure that those communities are taken care of.
Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John E. Pennington
Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee, I am John E.
Pennington, Regional Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region 10 Office
located in Bothell, Washington. On behalf of FEMA, and the Department
of Homeland Security, we welcome and appreciate the invitation to
appear today before the Committee on Appropriations. It is a distinct
honor and privilege to be here today.
As you all well know, FEMA is the lead federal agency responsible
for coordinating disaster response, recovery, and mitigation efforts
following disasters and emergencies declared by the President. Our
programs are made available to communities through our state partner
organizations, and are intended to supplement the response activities
and recovery programs of states. These programs are authorized under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
commonly referred to as the ``Stafford Act.'' The Stafford Act is
widely known as the authority by which programs are made available
following disaster declarations.
Assistance that is made available to states, communities, and
individuals following disasters include:
--The Public Assistance program, which provides assistance for the
restoration of public and certain private non-profit facilities
damaged by an event, and the reimbursement of the costs
associated with emergency protective measures and debris
removal;
--The Individual Assistance programs, which help individuals and
families ensure their essential needs are met after disasters
and that they can begin the road to successful recovery; and
--The Hazard Mitigation Grant program, which I will discuss in detail
in a moment.
Additionally, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program is authorized
under the Stafford Act.
FEMA's programs are designed to assist states and communities in
carrying out their responsibilities and priorities. Our assistance is
available in varying forms, such as grants, technical assistance, and
planning assistance.
Before I discuss the specific programs applicable to the topic of
this hearing, I must point out that the success of FEMA and our
programs is dependent on a strong professional partnership with state
emergency management offices. Thanks to the leadership of Major General
Craig Campbell, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs, and Dave Liebersbach, Director of the Alaska Division
of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, we have forged a strong
and lasting professional partnership that ensures successful emergency
management for Alaskan communities and citizens. FEMA greatly
appreciates their leadership, professionalism, and dedication.
Considering the subject of ``Alaska Native Villages Affected by
Flooding and Erosion,'' I will focus on three of FEMA's programs that
could be available to the state of Alaska and the Alaskan Native
villages in their efforts to address the complex challenges of flooding
and erosion.
First, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program was authorized by
Congress under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, which was signed
into law on October 30, 2000. This program is available to communities
through the state emergency management organizations, and is designed
to fund the most competitive mitigation projects and planning efforts
of states and communities, as identified and prioritized in state and
local mitigation plans. The development and adoption of these state and
local mitigation plans is required under the Stafford Act as a result
of the legislative amendments of 2000. Funding for this competitive
grant program is not triggered by a Presidential Disaster Declaration;
rather it is funded through the annual appropriations process. All
states and communities throughout the nation that have FEMA-approved
mitigation plans are eligible to apply for the program. Accordingly,
the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program will help sustain an enhanced
national mitigation effort year-to-year, as opposed to previous years
when FEMA mitigation assistance was generally only available when a
disaster was declared in a state.
Examples of projects funded under the program include the
development of all-hazard mitigation plans, the seismic retrofitting of
critical public buildings, and acquisition or relocation of flood-prone
properties located in the floodplain, just to name a few. All projects
submitted are developed at the state or local level, must be cost-
effective, and are approved following a nationally competitive peer-
review process.
Second, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is available to states
and communities following Presidential Disaster Declarations. This
program is quite similar to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program just
described, though it is available only after a Disaster is declared,
and is available only for the state in which the declaration was made.
Further, the amount of assistance available under the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program is a percentage of FEMA's assistance made available under
the response and recovery programs--specifically 7.5 percent of the
total projected expenditures for the disaster grants. Essentially, the
greater the losses an affected state incurs, the greater the hazard
mitigation assistance available.
As with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, all projects are
developed at the state or local level, must be cost-effective, and are
recommended by the state in accordance with the State Hazard Mitigation
Plan. Again, examples of projects funded under the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program include the development of all-hazards mitigation plans,
the seismic retrofitting of critical public buildings, and acquisition
or relocation of flood-prone properties located in the floodplain.
Third, FEMA's Flood Mitigation Assistance program is authorized for
mitigating structures insured by the National Flood Insurance Program
within a community participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program. Projects include the elevation, relocation, and acquisition of
flood prone structures. Because this program is funded by monies
collected from policyholders, the recent focus of the program has been
on mitigating repetitive loss structures in order to reduce the drain
on the National Flood Insurance Fund. Repetitive loss structures are
those insured structures where two or more insurance claims have been
filed in any 10-year period.
There are two important points I must mention related to the
potential eligibility of projects under the Flood Mitigation Assistance
program: (1) Many of the remote Alaskan communities vulnerable to
flooding and erosion are not currently in areas mapped for flood
hazards and are not participating in the NFIP, which is a requirement
for consideration under the Flood Mitigation Assistance program, even
in unmapped areas; and (2) In fiscal year 1998, $600,000 of assistance
was provided to Shishmaref under the Flood Mitigation Assistance
program for bank protection and the elevation and relocation of
approximately nine residences. This assistance was provided prior to
the policy change that required all projects to be targeted at NFIP
repetitive loss structures.
In summary, FEMA may provide assistance to Alaskan Native Villages
affected by flooding and erosion primarily in the areas of mitigation
planning and project grants. I will ensure that the dedicated
mitigation staff of FEMA will continue to work with the state of Alaska
to identify and provide technical assistance in the development of
cost-effective projects for consideration under the Pre-Disaster
Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs and, for communities
participating in the National Flood Insurance Program, the Flood
Mitigation Assistance Program. Finally, if one or more communities
experience significant flooding and a Major Disaster were declared,
please be assured that the full breadth of our Stafford Act programs
would become available. FEMA would ensure the recovery and mitigation
programs would be provided with the greatest of coordination and
allowable flexibility to ensure the long-term plans of the communities
are considered, to include the potential relocation of certain
structures and facilities.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to represent the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security
before the Committee on Appropriations. I am pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Chairman Stevens. Our next witness is Mr. Robert A.
Robinson, Managing Director of the Natural Resources and
Environment for the United States General Accounting Office.
Rob.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. ROBINSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S.
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a
pleasure to come to Alaska for any reason, and it's a
particular privilege to be able to discuss the findings of our
December 2003 report on flooding and erosion problems in Alaska
villages. Joining me today is Jack Malcolm, who is GAO's expert
on Federal Native American programs and the Stafford Act and
who worked on this project, as well as our ongoing work for you
looking at rights in the States.
Our review of Alaska Native village flooding was undertaken
in response to a congressional mandate set forth in the
conference report on the 2003 military construction
appropriation. It had four distinct objectives. First, to
determine the extent of the flooding and erosion problem.
Second, to identify Federal and State programs that are
available to address the problems. Three, to determine how nine
specific villages were responding to their particular problems,
and, finally, to identify alternatives for the Congress to
consider in providing assistance to the villages. Respecting
the time available, let me just hit the highlights of what we
found.
For those interested in a fuller discussion, there are some
hard copies available in the back of the room as well.
First, flooding and erosion affects the vast majority of
Alaska Native villages. The affected villages are in every
region of the State, specifically almost 90 percent or 184 out
of 213 villages face flooding and erosion problems of some
sort. Our findings are consistent with State studies in the
early 1980s that found a similar count.
Unfortunately, while many such problems are long-standing,
it appears that they are getting worse due in part to rising
temperatures. The cost to address these problems could easily
exceed $1 billion.
Second, numerous national programs managed by at least
seven Federal agencies are available to respond to the flooding
and erosion problems as discussed. Multiple Alaska State
programs are also available. The principal programs are
administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Agriculture
Department's Natural Resources and Conservation Services, DAT-
and HUD-run multiple programs, and of course, as you heard,
FEMA runs relative programs as well.
The good news is that many programs exist. The bad news is
that the villages often do not meet the key eligibility
requirements to qualify for assistance. This is occurring for
two main reasons: One, the expected cost of projects to address
the problems often exceed the maximum required benefit. The
main Federal programs require maximum benefits to exceed
project costs before funding can be provided. This legal
requirement is set forth in the Flood Control Act of 1936.
Second, villages often cannot come up with the funds needed
to satisfy cost-share requirements. As you've heard earlier,
the Corps of Engineers generally requires that local
communities can fund between 25 and 50 percent of flood control
projects. Native villages, of course, do not have the hundreds
of thousands of dollars that could be necessary to meet this
obligation.
The State of Alaska has jumped in on many occasions in the
past to fulfill that obligation, but State budgets are getting
short as well.
Relative to the third objective: Of the nine villages that
we reviewed, four, Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok and Shishmaref are
in imminent danger and are making plans to relocate at
potentially very high costs. The cost estimates to relocate
Kivalina's 388 residents have ranged from $100 million to well
over $400 million. No estimates are available for Newtok,
Shishmaref and Koyukuk, but the United States Corps of
Engineers is actively starting a number of studies to develop
cost estimates.
The other five villages, Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Point
Hope, and Unalakleet, are considering other alternatives, such
as protecting the infrastructure or supplementing existing
seawalls. I believe representatives of each one of these nine
villages will be speaking tomorrow.
Finally, we presented four options for the Congress to
consider as it deliberates over how and to what extent Federal
programs could readily respond to the flooding and erosion
problems here.
They are, in order, expanding the role of the Denali
Commission to include flooding and erosion control among its
authorized activities; directing Federal agencies, particularly
the Corps and main NRC programs, to include a value for social
and environmental factors in their cost-benefit calculations,
not just a consideration for flood and erosion control projects
in Alaska Native villages; the programs waiving the Federal
cost-sharing requirement for flooding and erosion projects in
Alaska villages and, finally, authorizing villages to
consolidate or bundle funds from multiple Federal agencies and
programs to address the problems or satisfy local cost-share
requirements.
Obviously, considering such alternatives is a policy
decision resting with the Congress, and we did not weigh in on
which, if any, option should be chosen. As needs and
potentially other options are raised, however, budgetary costs
as well as the implications of any program changes made for
Alaska villages would have for the rest of the Nation the
precedent-setting aspect would have to be considered.
Mr. Chairman, there is much more we could say and discuss
on the subject, but let me close here and just mention that
Jeff and I are available and happy to respond to any questions
you may have at the appropriate time.
Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert A. Robinson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss our work on Alaska Native villages affected by
flooding and erosion. As you know, Alaska's shorelines and riverbanks
serve as home to over 200 Native villages whose inhabitants generally
hunt and fish for subsistence. However, these shorelines and riverbanks
can be subject to periodic, yet severe flooding and erosion. Coastal
and river flooding and erosion cause millions of dollars of property
damage in Alaska Native villages, damaging or destroying homes, public
buildings, and airport runways. Several federal and state agencies are
directly or indirectly involved in providing assistance for flooding
and erosion in Alaska. In addition to government agencies, the Denali
Commission, created by Congress in 1998, is charged with addressing
crucial needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly isolated Alaska
Native villages, although it is not directly responsible for responding
to flooding and erosion.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. No. 105-277, tit. III, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the military
construction appropriation bill directed GAO to study Alaska Native
villages affected by flooding and erosion.\2\ In December 2003, we
reported on Alaska Native villages' access to federal flooding and
erosion programs.\3\ These programs are administered by several federal
agencies, but principally by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Agriculture Department's Natural Resources Conservation Service. Our
report discussed four alternatives that could help mitigate the
barriers that villages face in obtaining federal services. Our
testimony today is based on that report and focuses on (1) the number
of Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion, (2) the
extent to which federal assistance has been provided to those villages,
(3) the efforts of nine villages to respond to flooding and erosion,
and (4) alternatives that Congress may wish to consider when providing
assistance for flooding and erosion of Alaska Native villages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-731, at 15 (2002).
\3\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Alaska Native Villages: Most
Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal
Assistance, GAO-04-142 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To meet these objectives, we reviewed federal and state flooding
and erosion studies and project documents and interviewed federal and
state agency officials and representatives from nine Alaska Native
villages. We also visited four of the nine villages. While the
conference report directed us to include at least six villages in our
study--Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Point Hope, and Unalakleet--
we added three more--Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref--based on
discussions with congressional staff and with federal and state
officials familiar with flooding and erosion problems. Our December
2003 report, on which this testimony is based, was prepared in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
In summary, we reported the following:
--First, 184 out of 213, or 86 percent of Alaska Native villages
experience some level of flooding and erosion, according to
federal and state officials in Alaska. Native villages on the
coast or along rivers have long been subject to both annual and
episodic flooding and erosion. Various studies and reports
indicate that coastal villages in Alaska are becoming more
susceptible to flooding and erosion in part because rising
temperatures delay formation of protective shore ice, leaving
the villages vulnerable to fall storms. For example, the
barrier island village of Shishmaref, which is less than 1,320
feet wide, lost 125 feet of beach to erosion during an October
1997 storm. In addition, villages in low-lying areas along
riverbanks or in river deltas are susceptible to flooding and
erosion caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, rising sea
levels, and heavy rainfall.
--Second, small and remote Alaska Native villages often fail to
qualify for assistance under federal flooding and erosion
programs because they do not meet program eligibility criteria.
For example, according to the Corps' guidelines for evaluating
water resource projects, the Corps generally cannot undertake a
project when the economic costs exceed the expected benefits.
With few exceptions, Alaska Native villages' requests for
assistance under this program are denied because the project
costs usually outweigh expected economic benefits as currently
defined. Even villages that meet the Corps' cost/benefit
criteria may still fail to qualify if they cannot meet cost-
share requirements for the project. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service's Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Program also requires a cost/benefit analysis
similar to that of the Corps. As a result, few Alaska Native
villages qualify for assistance under this program. However,
the Natural Resources Conservation Service has other programs
that have provided limited assistance to these villages--in
part because these programs consider additional social and
environmental factors in developing their cost/benefit
analysis.
--Third, of the nine villages that we reviewed, four--Kivalina,
Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref--are in imminent danger from
flooding and erosion and are making plans to relocate; the
remaining villages are taking other actions. Kivalina, Newtok,
and Shishmaref are working with relevant federal agencies to
determine the suitability of possible relocation sites, while
Koyukuk is in the early stages of planning for relocation.
Because of the high cost of materials and transportation in
remote parts of Alaska, the cost of relocation for these
villages is expected to be high. The five villages not
currently planning to relocate--Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Point
Hope, and Unalakleet--are in various stages of responding to
their flooding and erosion problems. For example, two of these
villages, Kaktovik and Point Hope, are studying ways to prevent
flooding of specific infrastructure, such as the airport
runway.
--Fourth, federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska Native
village representatives that we spoke with identified the
following three alternatives that could help mitigate barriers
to villages' obtaining federal services: (1) expand the role of
the Denali Commission to include responsibility for managing a
new flooding and erosion assistance program, (2) direct the
federal agencies to consider social and environmental factors
in their cost benefit analyses for these projects, and (3)
waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for flooding and
erosion programs for Alaska Native villages. In addition, we
identified as a fourth alternative the bundling of funds from
various agencies to address flooding and erosion problems in
Alaska Native villages. While we did not determine the cost or
the national policy implications associated with any of these
alternatives, these costs and implications are important
considerations in determining the appropriate level of federal
services that should be available to respond to flooding and
erosion in Alaska Native villages. Consequently, in our report
we suggested the Congress consider directing relevant federal
agencies and the Denali Commission to assess the feasibility of
each of the alternatives, as appropriate. In commenting on our
report, the Denali Commission and two federal agencies raised
questions about expanding the Denali Commission's role to cover
flooding and erosion. While each of these entities recognized
the need for improved coordination of federal efforts to
address flooding and erosion in Alaska Native villages, none of
them provided any specific suggestions on how this should be
accomplished or by whom. As a result, we continue to believe
that expanding the role of the commission is a viable
alternative.
BACKGROUND
Alaska encompasses an area of about 365 million acres--more than
the combined area of the next three largest states of Texas,
California, and Montana. The state is bound on three sides by water,
and its coastline, which stretches about 6,600 miles (excluding island
shorelines, bays and fjords) and accounts for more than half of the
entire U.S. coastline, varies from rocky shores, sandy beaches, and
high cliffs to river deltas, mud flats, and barrier islands. The
coastline constantly changes through wave action, ocean currents,
storms, and river deposits and is subject to periodic, yet often
severe, erosion. Alaska also has more than 12,000 rivers, including
three of the ten largest in the country: the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and
Copper Rivers.\4\ (See fig. 1.) While these and other rivers provide
food, transportation, and recreation for people, as well as habitat for
fish and wildlife, their waters also shape the landscape. In
particular, ice jams on rivers and flooding of riverbanks during spring
breakup change the contour of valleys, wetlands, and human settlements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The size is determined by the average rate of flow (discharge
at the mouth).
Figure 1. Map of Alaska Showing Major Rivers, Oceans, and Mountain
Ranges
Permafrost (permanently frozen subsoil) is found over approximately
80 percent of Alaska. It is deepest and most extensive on the Arctic
Coastal Plain and decreases in depth further south, eventually becoming
discontinuous. In northern Alaska, where the permafrost is virtually
everywhere, most buildings are elevated to minimize the amount of heat
transferred to the ground to avoid melting the permafrost. However,
rising temperatures in recent years have led to widespread thawing of
the permafrost, causing serious damage. As permafrost melts, land
slumps and erodes, buildings and runways sink, and bulk fuel tank areas
are threatened. (See fig. 2.)
Figure 2. Sea Erosion at Shishmaref (June 2003)
Rising temperatures have also affected the thickness, extent, and
duration of sea ice that forms along the western and northern coasts.
Loss of sea ice leaves coasts more vulnerable to waves, storm surges,
and erosion. When combined with the thawing of permafrost along the
coast, loss of sea ice seriously threatens coastal Alaska Native
villages. Furthermore, loss of sea ice alters the habitat and
accessibility of many of the marine mammals that Alaska Natives depend
upon for subsistence. As the ice melts or moves away early, walruses,
seals, and polar bears move with it, taking themselves too far away to
be hunted.
Federal, state, and local government agencies share responsibility
for controlling and responding to flooding and erosion. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has responsibility for planning and constructing
streambank and shoreline erosion protection and flood control
structures under a specific set of requirements.\5\ The Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is
responsible for protecting small watersheds. The Continuing Authorities
Program, administered by the Corps, and the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Program, administered by NRCS, are the principal
programs available to prevent flooding and control erosion. Table 1
below lists and describes the five authorities under the Corps'
Continuing Authorities Program that address flooding and erosion, while
table 2 identifies the main NRCS programs that provide assistance for
flooding and erosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Corps may study and construct erosion protection and flood
control structures, provided it receives authority and appropriations
from Congress to do so. In addition to building structures, the Corps
may also consider and implement non-structural and relocation
alternatives.
TABLE 1.--AUTHORITIES THAT ADDRESS FLOODING AND EROSION UNDER THE CORPS'
CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program authority Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of For emergency streambank and
1946. shoreline erosion
protection for public
facilities.
Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of Authorizes flood control
1948. projects.
Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of Authorizes flood control
1954. activities.
Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of Protect shores of publicly
1962. owned property from
hurricane and storm damage.
Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of Mitigate shoreline erosion
1968. damage caused by federal
navigation projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of Corps program information.
In addition to the Corps' Continuing Authorities Program, other
Corps authorities that may address problems related to flooding and
erosion include the following:
--Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, which
provides authority for the Corps to assist states in the
preparation of comprehensive plans for the development,
utilization, and conservation of water and related resources of
drainage basins.
--Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960, which allows the
Corps' Flood Plain Management Services' Program to provide
states and local governments technical services and planning
guidance that is needed to support effective flood plain
management.
TABLE 2.--NRCS PROGRAMS THAT RESPOND TO FLOODING AND EROSION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Provides funding for
Program. projects that control
erosion and prevent
flooding. Limited to
watersheds that are less
than 250,000 acres.
Emergency Watershed Protection Program.... Provides assistance where
there is some imminent
threat--usually from some
sort of erosion caused by
river flooding.
Conservation Technical Assistance Program. Provides technical
assistance to communities
and individuals to solve
natural resource problems
including reducing erosion,
improving air and water
quality, and maintaining or
restoring wetlands and
habitat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of NRCS program information.
A number of other federal agencies, such as the Departments of
Transportation, Homeland Security (Federal Emergency Management
Agency), and Housing and Urban Development, also have programs that can
assist Alaska Native villages in responding to the consequences of
flooding by funding tasks such as moving homes, repairing roads and
boardwalks, or rebuilding airport runways. In additional to government
agencies, the Denali Commission, created by Congress in 1998, while not
directly responsible for responding to flooding and erosion, is charged
with addressing crucial needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly
isolated Alaska Native villages.
On the state side, Alaska's Division of Emergency Services responds
to state disaster declarations dealing with flooding and erosion when
local communities request assistance. The Alaska Department of
Community and Economic Development helps communities reduce losses and
damage from flooding and erosion. The Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities funds work to protect runways from
erosion. Local governments such as the North Slope Borough have also
funded erosion control and flood protection projects.
most alaska native villages are affected to some extent by flooding and
EROSION
Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, of
Alaska Native villages to some extent, according to studies and
information provided to us by federal and Alaska state officials. The
184 affected villages consist of coastal and river villages throughout
the state. (See fig. 3.) Villages on the coast are affected by flooding
and erosion from the sea. For example, when these villages are not
protected by sea ice, they are at risk of flooding and erosion from
storm surges. In the case of Kivalina, the community has experienced
frequent erosion from sea storms, particularly in late summer or fall.
These storms can result in a sea level rise of 10 feet or more, and
when combined with high tide, the storm surge becomes even greater and
can be accompanied by waves containing ice. Communities in low-lying
areas along riverbanks or in river deltas are susceptible to flooding
and erosion caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, rising sea
levels and heavy rainfall.
Figure 3. Locations of 184 Alaska Native Villages Affected by Flooding
and Erosion
Flooding and erosion are long-standing problems in Alaska. In
Bethel, Unalakleet, and Shishmaref for example, these problems have
been well documented dating back to the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s,
respectively. The state has made several efforts to identify
communities affected by flooding and erosion over the past 30 years. In
1982, a state contractor developed a list of Alaska communities
affected by flooding and erosion.\6\ This list identified 169 of the
213 Alaska Native villages, virtually the same villages identified by
federal and state officials that we consulted in 2003. In addition, the
state appointed an Erosion Control Task Force in 1983 to investigate
and inventory potential erosion problems and to prioritize erosion
sites by severity and need. In its January 1984 final report, the task
force identified a total of 30 priority communities with erosion
problems. Of these 30 communities, 28 are Alaska Native villages.
Federal and state officials that we spoke with in 2003 also identified
almost all of the Native communities given priority in the 1984 report
as still needing assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This report was prepared for the Alaska Department of Community
and Regional Affairs, the predecessor of the Alaska Department of
Community and Economic Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While most Alaska Native villages are affected to some extent by
flooding and erosion, quantifiable data are not available to fully
assess the severity of the problem. Federal and Alaska state agency
officials that we contacted could agree on which three or four villages
experience the most flooding and erosion, but they could not rank
flooding and erosion in the remaining villages by high, medium, or low
severity. These agency officials said that determining the extent to
which villages have been affected by flooding and erosion is difficult
because Alaska has significant data gaps. These gaps occur because
remote locations lack monitoring equipment. The officials noted that
about 400 to 500 gauging stations would have to be added in Alaska to
attain the same level of gauging as in the Pacific Northwest.
While flooding and erosion has been documented in Alaska for
decades, various studies and reports indicate that coastal villages in
Alaska are becoming more susceptible. This increasing susceptibility is
due in part to rising temperatures that cause protective shore ice to
form later in the year, leaving the villages vulnerable to storms.
According to the Alaska Climate Research Center, mean annual
temperatures have risen for the period from 1971 to 2000, although
changes varied from one climate zone to another and were dependent on
the temperature station selected. For example, Barrow experienced an
average temperature increase of 4.16 degrees Fahrenheit for the 30-year
period from 1971 to 2000, while Bethel experienced an increase of 3.08
degrees Fahrenheit for the same time period.
ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES HAVE DIFFICULTY QUALIFYING FOR FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE
Alaska Native villages have difficulty qualifying for assistance
under the key federal flooding and erosion programs, largely because of
program requirements that the project costs not exceed economic
benefits, or because of cost-sharing requirements. For example,
according to the Corps' guidelines for evaluating water resource
projects, the Corps generally cannot undertake a project whose costs
exceed its expected economic benefits as currently defined.\7\ With few
exceptions, Alaska Native villages' requests for the Corps' assistance
are denied because of the Corps' determination that project costs
outweigh the expected economic benefits. Alaska Native villages have
difficulty meeting the cost/benefit requirement because many are not
developed to the extent that the value of their infrastructure is high
enough to equal the cost of a proposed erosion or flood control
project. For example, the Alaska Native village of Kongiganak, with a
population of about 360 people, experiences severe erosion from the
Kongnignanohk River. However, the Corps decided not to fund an erosion
project for this village because the cost of the project exceeded the
expected benefits and because many of the structures threatened are
private property, which are not eligible for protection under a Section
14 Emergency Streambank Protection project. Meeting the cost/benefit
requirement is especially difficult for remote Alaska Native villages
because the cost of construction is high--largely because labor,
equipment, and materials have to be brought in from distant locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Corps' guidelines are based on the Flood Control Act of
1936, which provides that ``the Federal Government should improve or
participate in the improvement of navigable waters or their tributaries
. . . if the benefits . . . are in excess of the estimated costs.'' 33
U.S.C. 701a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even villages that do meet the Corps' cost/benefit criteria may
still not receive assistance if they cannot provide or find sufficient
funding to meet the cost-share requirements for the project. By law,
the Corps generally requires local communities to fund between 25 and
50 percent of project planning and construction costs for flood
prevention and erosion control projects.\8\ According to village
leaders we spoke to, they may need to pay hundreds of thousands of
dollars or more under these cost-share requirements to fund their
portion of a project--funding many of them do not have.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Corps has the authority to make cost-sharing adjustments
based upon a community's ability to pay under section 103(m) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended. 33 U.S.C.
2213(m).
\9\ According to state of Alaska officials, historically the state
has provided the nonfederal matching funds for most Corps of Engineers
(and other federal) projects, but with the extreme budget deficits
currently faced by the state of Alaska, matching funds have been
severely limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCS has three key programs that can provide assistance to villages
to protect against flooding and erosion. One program--the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Program--has a cost/benefit requirement
similar to the Corps program and as a result, few projects for Alaska
Native villages have been funded under this program. In contrast, some
villages have been able to qualify for assistance from NRCS's two other
programs--the Emergency Watershed Protection Program and the
Conservation Technical Assistance Program. For example, under its
Emergency Watershed Protection Program, NRCS allows consideration of
additional factors in the cost/benefit analysis.\10\ Specifically, NRCS
considers social or environmental factors when calculating the
potential benefits of a proposed project, and the importance of
protecting the subsistence lifestyle of an Alaska Native village can be
included as one of these factors. In addition, while NRCS encourages
cost sharing by local communities, this requirement can be waived when
the local community cannot afford to pay for a project under this
program. Such was the case in Unalakleet, where the community had
petitioned federal and state agencies to fund its local cost-share of
an erosion protection project and was not successful. Eventually, NRCS
waived the cost-share requirement for the village and covered the total
cost of the project itself. (See fig. 4.) Another NRCS official in
Alaska estimated that about 25 villages requested assistance under this
program during the last 5 years, and of these 25 villages, 6 received
some assistance from NRCS and 19 were turned down--mostly because there
were either no feasible solutions or because the problems they wished
to address were recurring ones and therefore ineligible for the
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Emergency Watershed Protection program was authorized
under the Flood Control Act of 1950, Pub. L. No. 81-516 (1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NRCS.
Figure 4. NRCS Seawall Erosion Protection Project at Unalakleet (c.
2000)
Unlike any of the Corps' or NRCS's other programs, NRCS's
Conservation Technical Assistance Program does not require any cost-
benefit analysis for projects to qualify for assistance.\11\ An NRCS
official in Alaska estimated that during the last 2 years, NRCS
provided assistance to about 25 villages under this program. The
program is designed to help communities and individuals solve natural
resource problems, improve the health of the watershed, reduce erosion,
improve air and water quality, or maintain or improve wetlands and
habitat. The technical assistance provided can range from advice or
consultation to developing planning, design, and/or engineering
documents. The program does not fund construction or implementation of
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Conservation Technical Assistance Program was authorized
under the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, Pub. L.
No. 74-46 (1935).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOUR VILLAGES IN IMMINENT DANGER ARE PLANNING TO RELOCATE, AND THE
REMAINING FIVE VILLAGES ARE TAKING OTHER ACTIONS
Four of the nine villages we reviewed are in imminent danger from
flooding and erosion and are making plans to relocate, while the
remaining five are taking other actions. Of the four villages
relocating, Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref are working with relevant
federal agencies to locate suitable new sites, while Koyukuk is just
beginning the planning process for relocation. Because of the high cost
of construction in remote parts of Alaska, the cost of relocation for
these villages is expected to be high. For example, the Corps estimates
that the cost to relocate Kivalina could range from $100 million for
design and construction of infrastructure, including a gravel pad, at
one site and up to $400 million for just the cost of building a gravel
pad at another site. Cost estimates for relocating the other three
villages are not yet available. Of the five villages not currently
planning to relocate, Barrow, Kaktovik, Point Hope, and Unalakleet each
have studies underway that target specific infrastructure that is
vulnerable to flooding and erosion. The fifth village, Bethel, is
planning to repair and extend an existing seawall to protect the
village's dock from river erosion. In fiscal year 2003, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations directed the Corps to perform an analysis
of costs associated with continued erosion of six of these nine
villages, potential costs of relocating the villages, and to identify
the expected timeline for complete failure of useable land associated
with each community.\12\ Table 3 summarizes the status of the nine
villages' efforts to respond to their specific flooding and erosion
problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Senate report for the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7 (2003), directed the Corps
to study the following communities in Alaska: Bethel, Dillingham,
Shishmaref, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Unalakleet, and Newtok. S. Rep. No.
107-220 at 23-24 (2002). The Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2004 further provided that the $2 million
previously provided in the 2003 appropriations was ``to be used to
provide technical assistance at full Federal expense, to Alaskan
communities to address the serious impacts of coastal erosion.'' Pub.
L. No. 108-137, 112, 117 Stat. 1827, 1835-36 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALTERNATIVES FOR ADDRESSING BARRIERS THAT VILLAGES FACE IN OBTAINING
FEDERAL SERVICES
The unique circumstances of Alaska Native villages and their
inability to qualify for assistance under a variety of federal flooding
and erosion programs may require special measures to ensure that the
villages receive certain needed services. Alaska Native villages, which
are predominately remote and small, often face barriers not commonly
found in other areas of the United States, such as harsh climate,
limited access and infrastructure, high fuel and shipping prices, short
construction seasons, and ice-rich permafrost soils. In addition, many
of the federal programs to prevent and control flooding and erosion are
not a good fit for the Alaska Native villages because of the
requirement that project costs not exceed the economic benefits.
Federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska Native village
representatives that we spoke with identified several alternatives for
Congress that could help mitigate the barriers that villages face in
obtaining federal services.
These alternatives include (1) expanding the role of the Denali
Commission to include responsibilities for managing a new flooding and
erosion assistance program, (2) directing the Corps and NRCS to include
social and environmental factors in their cost/benefit analyses for
projects requested by Alaska Native villages, and (3) waiving the
federal cost-sharing requirement for flooding and erosion projects for
Alaska Native villages. In addition, we identified a fourth
alternative--authorizing the bundling of funds from various agencies to
address flooding and erosion problems in these villages. Each of these
alternatives has the potential to increase the level of federal
services to Alaska Native villages and can be considered individually
or in any combination. However, adopting some of these alternatives
will require consideration of a number of important factors, including
the potential to set a precedent for other communities and programs as
well as resulting budgetary implications. While we did not determine
the cost or the national policy implications associated with any of the
alternatives, these are important considerations when determining
appropriate federal action.
In conclusion, Alaska Native villages are being increasingly
affected by flooding and erosion problems being worsened at least to
some degree by climatological changes. They must nonetheless find ways
to respond to these problems. Many Alaska Native villages that are
small, remote, and have a subsistence lifestyle, lack the resources to
address the problems on their own. Yet villages have difficulty finding
assistance under several federal programs, because as currently defined
the economic costs of the proposed project to control flooding and
erosion exceed the expected economic benefits. As a result, many
private homes and other infrastructure continue to be threatened. Given
the unique circumstances of Alaska Native villages, special measures
may be required to ensure that these communities receive the assistance
they need to respond to problems that could continue to increase.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee
my have at this time.
TABLE 3.--NINE ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES' EFFORTS TO ADDRESS FLOODING AND EROSION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Native village Population \1\ Status of efforts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Villages planning to relocate:
Kivalina............................... 388 Located on a barrier island that is both overcrowded and shrinking. Cost estimates to relocate range from $100 million to over $400
million. The Corps is currently negotiating a scope of work for relocation alternatives under both the Planning Assistance to
States Program and the Alaska Villages Erosion Technical Assistance Program.
Shishmaref............................. 594 Located on a barrier island and experiencing chronic erosion. Recently selected a relocation site. In the meantime, a Bureau of
Indian Affairs funded seawall was recently completed to temporarily protect a road project and the Corps is starting a Section 14
project to extend this seawall to protect the school as well.
Newtok................................. 329 Suffers chronic erosion along its riverbank. Legislation for a land exchange with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service became law in
November 2003 (Pub. L. No. 108-129). Interim Conveyance No. 1876 signed in April 2004. Relocation studies are continuing under the
Corps' Planning Assistance to States Program and the Alaska Villages Erosion Technical Assistance Program.
Villages taking other actions:
Kaktovik............................... 295 Airport runway is subject to annual flooding. The Federal Aviation Administration funded a study to determine least-cost
alternative, but consensus on a site for a new airport has not been reached.
Point Hope............................. 725 Airport runway experiences flooding and is at risk of erosion. The North Slope Borough is analyzing construction alternatives for
an evacuation road.
Barrow................................. 4,417 The Corps is currently conducting a 5-year feasibility study of storm damage reduction measures. The underlying authority for this
study is the ``Rivers and Harbors in Alaska'' study resolution adopted by the House of Representatives Committee on Public Works
on December 2, 1970.
Unalakleet............................. 741 Coastal and river flooding and erosion have combined to create a chronic problem at the harbor. The Corps has begun a study on
improving navigational access.
Bethel................................. 5,899 Spring break-up ice jams on the Kuskokwim River cause both periodic flooding and severe erosion along the riverbank. A Corps
project to repair and extend the seawall to protect the dock and small boat harbor is stalled over land easements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Populations for the villages are based on 2003 Alaska State Demographer estimates.
Source: GAO analysis.
Chairman Stevens. Mr. Pat Poe, Regional Administrator for
the Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Region. Pat, nice
to see you.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK N. POE, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
ALASKA REGION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Poe. Thanks for including me. It's a privilege to be
with you all. To those who have traveled to Alaska, let me say
at the outset how pleased I am that you have come to see the
people and the environment face-to-face.
IMPORTANCE OF AVIATION IN ALASKA
If I might, I would like to do a couple moments as a scene
setter. Here in Alaska aviation is quite different than I think
you'll find it anywhere else in the United States. For example,
for every 58 citizens in Alaska, 1 of them will have a pilot's
license. For every 10 pilots, there are eight airplanes. Within
the Anchorage Bowl we have over 4,000 airplanes domiciled right
here. There are places in Alaska, for instance, 84 percent of
all the post offices only get mail by airplane. And in many
villages the only way the children go to school is by airplane,
to fly to the next village that has a school.
So aviation is essential to the economy and the lifestyle
in Alaska. So if the village moves, so does aviation. There are
several ways that can be done, and I want to outline just a
couple of them for the committee.
One, if the village moves within easy reach, so to speak,
of the existing airport, the FAA is prepared through the
Airport Improvement Program grant process to support the
building of an access road to the new village location, or if
that's not possible, the same program is available to actually
build a new airport.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS
The Airport Improvement Program grant is basically a
partnership between the FAA and the airport sponsor. And in
terms of all four of the airports that is the State of Alaska
and the Alaska village community. The sponsor's role is
critical in this because the sponsor, first of all, puts up a
degree of matching funds. Under the AIP program the funds range
from 5 to 7 percent of the total has to be provided by the
sponsor.
For rural Alaska and for rural locations across the Nation,
the lower number is used, so we are looking at a 5-percent
match. In addition, the sponsor provides the priorities for the
State. Where the State is the sponsor for the airports, they
request the grants and we react to that. So part of the issue
here will ultimately be the priority the State sets on this
grant submission.
And the third thing, as the airport sponsor, there's a
commitment to all of the grant assurances, which basically say
for 20 years these investments will stay as a benefit to the
airport and the community they serve.
BUILDING AN AIRPORT IN ALASKA
What does it take to build an airport? Typically in western
Alaska we're talking 3 to 5 years. We're talking $15 million to
$20 million. That cost seems high, the timeframe long, but the
reasons are all the challenges of building in rural Alaska. The
expense of mobilizing the necessary equipment and workforce,
the lack of building materials, and the fact that we have very
short seasons in which to perform construction.
The FAA and our approach to cost benefit, for just a
moment, has very stringent cost-benefit requirements for where
we place nav-aids and for where AIP funds can be used.
However, acknowledging the differences in Alaska and other
remote locations, those cost benefits tests have been waived
for Alaska's rural communities.
An example of how this might come together at Koyukuk, for
example, which is one of the four sites mentioned by GAO. In
2003 an Airport Improvement Program grant was awarded for $10
million to elevate the runway above the 100-year floodplain.
That project is underway. The village is looking at two
different locations for a new village site, either one of which
would continue to be serviced by the existing airport. The FAA,
if the need arises, would be prepared through the AIP program
to help support the creation of an extended access road.
In closing, I think as far as the airport moving with the
village, I think the keys to that success are early discussion,
long lead times. The FAA, I think, enjoys a relationship with
the State sponsors and other community sponsors for building
together the aviation infrastructure in Alaska upon which both
the economy and the lifestyles are built.
That concludes my comments, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick N. Poe
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today to share FAA
concerns and issues regarding the erosion in Alaskan communities.
I wish to preface my remarks by setting the scene for this august
committee and tell you that Alaska is often called, ``the flyingest
state in the Union'' because its residents depend to such a great
extent upon air travel. For more than 200 communities there is no road
access connecting them to the rest of the state. Transportation within
Alaska is largely by aircraft. There are fewer than 15,000 miles of
highway of which only 30 percent are paved in a state of 365 million
acres.
Air carriers transport the equivalent of four times the state's
population each year compared to 1.7 times the U.S. population carried
by air commerce in the other states. There are 225 air carriers
certified to operate in Alaska as either scheduled or on-demand
carriers. Alaska has 387 public use airports and thousands of
unofficial landing areas.
Since 1982, the Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) has
provided funding for 900 airport construction and improvement projects.
This year alone, we anticipate distributing approximately $190 million
in grants to State and local airport sponsors in Alaska.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Airports Division
provides grants to improve airport infrastructure development including
those threatened by flooding and erosion. The AIP program could
potentially contribute a significant portion of the funding for
relocation of an airport, if necessitated by community relocation. Once
the decision is made to relocate a village, the airport sponsor shall
make a determination as to whether the existing airport no longer meets
the community's needs. The sponsor may apply for an AIP grant to begin
the planning process concurrently with the relocation effort. FAA
Airports Division will review the application and either confirm the
decision to relocate or offer to assist in funding alternative
measures. It should be noted that the following criteria must be met in
order for federal AIP funding to be programmed for airport development:
--1. The airport is in the National Plan of Integrated Airport System
(NPIAS). Some of the primary factors for the adoption of an
Alaska airport into the NPIAS are: (i) the airport is a public-
use airport available for use by all citizens and (ii) the
airport serves an established community that receives scheduled
U.S. mail service.
--2. Any airport project must comply with the procedures and policies
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
--3. The proposed new airport must meet all applicable FAA airport
design standards and be documented within an FAA-approved
Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
--4. Any airport project must be requested and supported financially
by the designated airport sponsor. The airport sponsor must
have the legal authority and financial capability to carry out
its responsibilities under the grant agreement. Those
responsibilities include contributing a percentage of funding
and operating the airport according to grant assurances.
Alaska Villages Subject to Flooding and Erosion
Alaska villages planning to relocate in an effort to address
flooding and erosion include: Kivalina, Shishmaref, Newtok, and
Koyukuk. Of these communities, all are State owned and operated
airports. Alaska villages taking actions to mitigate erosion and flood
damage include: Kaktovik, Point Hope, Barrow, Unalakleet, and Bethel.
Concurrent with deliberations regarding community relocation, the
FAA and the villages will consider whether the local airports also need
to be relocated or whether the existing facilities can continue to
serve the communities at the new village sites.
At the villages of Kivalina, Shishmaref, and Newtok the Airports
Division of FAA will support maintaining the existing infrastructure
while the communities decide to undertake relocation. No major AIP-
funded projects are currently programmed or anticipated in the near
future for the current airports. If a village decides to relocate and
it is determined that the airport must also be established in a new
location, an application for an AIP grant will be entertained by the
FAA.
At the village of Koyukuk, a $10,000,000 AIP grant was issued in
fiscal year 2003 to elevate the runway out of the 100-year flood plain.
This existing State-owned airport will continue to serve the existing
community, and either of the two sites currently being considered as
new locations for the village. FAA may assist in funding an access road
if one is needed to connect the new community site with the airport.
At the village of Kaktovik, the airport is subject to periodic
seasonal flooding. A $300,000 AIP grant was issued in fiscal year 2002
for the development of a comprehensive airport master plan. The plan,
due to be completed in the spring of 2005, will evaluate current flood
and erosion protection at the existing airport and identify future
potential airport relocation sites that would best serve the future
needs of the village.
At the villages of Barrow, Bethel, Point Hope and Unalakleet the
State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities owns
and operates the airports. The Point Hope airport experiences
occasional erosion on the north end and is programmed for future AIP
funding to provide erosion control measures (i.e. armored rock). The
airport infrastructure at these villages is not subject to coastal
erosion or flooding.
Alaska Airport Development Data
Typical costs to construct a new airport in western rural Alaska
are approximately $15-$20 million. New construction typically takes 3-5
years to complete depending upon the site, the availability of adequate
base materials, and environmental conditions. In an extreme case, where
the new location is unknown and the environmental process will have to
be conducted, the timeframe could extend to 10 years. Many rural Alaska
airports are constructed using a technique termed ``silt push up.''
This method of airport construction involves the placement of a silt
sub-base material that often takes several years to settle and drain
prior to the placement and compaction of the top surface course
material.
These high costs and extended construction schedules reflect the
challenges of building in rural Alaska with expensive mobilization
costs, lack of suitable construction embankment materials, and short
construction seasons.
Capital investments undertaken by the FAA are subject to analysis
and review requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy
Act, as amended. This process includes mandatory coordination with
other State, Federal, local community, and tribal agencies and
governments prior to any work being undertaken. Because of these review
requirements, it is highly unlikely that any FAA project would commence
at a village without knowledge of an impending relocation.
FAA Order 7031.2C, Airway Planning Standard Number One (APS-1) is a
working order, which contains the policy and summarizes the criteria
used in determining eligibility of terminal locations for
establishment, discontinuance and improvements of specified types of
air navigation facilities and air traffic control services.
Former FAA Administrator Donald Engen wrote the Forward stating the
following:
``The safety and efficiency of air traffic determine requirements
for air navigational facilities and air traffic control services, but
these facilities and services should only be established at locations
where the benefits of service exceed the cost to the government.
Economic consideration of benefits and costs for both new
establishments and improvements to existing facilities or service is
related to air traffic activity levels. This order specifies minimum
activity levels for terminal air navigation facilities and air traffic
control services. For certain types of facilities, the order also
establishes a requirement for additional cost benefit and other
analyses prior to facility commissioning or decommissioning. Satisfying
criteria specified herein does not constitute a commitment by the
Federal Aviation Administration to provide, modify, or discontinue
eligible facilities or services.''
Acknowledging Alaska's dependence upon air transportation, there
are provisions in the Order exempting both the agency and airport
sponsors in remote locations from the cost/benefit analyses required in
other regions of the United States.
If a determination were made requiring the relocations of runways
or navigational aids, the instrument procedures for the airport would
be developed concurrently with the new airport construction. The
current time frame for the development of instrument procedures is
approximately 12 to 18 months depending upon the availability of survey
data, completion of environmental studies, and establishment of weather
and communications facilities.
In association with the creation of a new airport there will be the
establishment of air routes and installation of navigation aids.
Estimates of costs per airport range from $30,000 to $40,000 for two
approaches.
FAA has limited facilities at the Kivalina and Shishmaref airports,
and no facilities at the other airports. There are no known FAA
environmental cleanup requirements at any of the airports. Costs to
remove the facilities at the two airports are estimated at $60,000.
There are requirements in the FAA leases to restore the property upon
decommissioning of facilities. The estimated costs for FAA facilities
restoration are $100,000.
In 2002, Congress funded the Rural Airport Lighting Program to
improve access for medical and other emergencies. Lighting continues to
be installed at rural airports until any relocation is completed. At
three of the four locations referenced in the GAO report (i.e.,
Kivalina, Shishmaref, and Koyukuk) there are projects identified to
establish airport lighting as an aid to rural access as follows:
Establish runway end identifier lights (REIL) and precision
approach path indicators (PAPI) on Runway ends 12 and 30 at Kivalina
Airport (per the Rural Alaska Lighting Program; funded but not yet
scheduled for implementation).
Establish REIL and PAPIs on Koyukuk Airport. A portion of this work
is funded by AIP dollars as part of the raising of the runway. This
existing State-owned airport will continue to serve the existing
community, and the proposed village relocation sites.
Other projects are on schedule as part of the FAA mission to
maintain navigation aids while airports remain in use such as:
Replace radio control equipment for the remote communications
outlet at Shishmaref Airport (active maintenance operations project).
Replace obstruction lights on the nondirectional beacon tower at
Shishmaref Airport (active maintenance operations project).
In closing, the FAA has a long history of partnership with Alaska's
communities to develop and improve aviation infrastructure that
supports the life and economy of this state. We continue that work as
part of our mission and our stewardship of the state's resources.
Thank you for inviting me to present this testimony today and for
your interest in this very important topic.
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO VILLAGES
Chairman Stevens. Thank you all very much. I think what we
probably have here is so many different villages being affected
at the same time. We have had experience in California and down
the east coast of separate communities being subjected to wave
or flooding damage, but I can't remember a situation where we
faced almost 200 different villages threatened, and according
to the report, there's at least nine immediately threatened
that need something unique for each area.
I do appreciate your being here, Mr. Poe, because what
really came to our attention first was the annual flooding of
some of these airports, which was the sole means of access for
the villages. So we directed the GAO study, and I'm grateful
for the GAO study having been done so thoroughly and so
promptly. We do have, I think, some guidelines to proceed on.
We've got about 40 minutes left on this first panel, so
we'll allocate time to my colleagues, who have approached this
to a certain extent new.
Mr. Robinson, with regard to your report, you did indicate,
as was quoted by General Davis, that the likelihood of these
entities being eligible for Federal assistance as you pointed
out is really a difficult question.
Have you come to a conclusion as to any recommendations
that you would make to Congress with regard to changing those
eligibility requirements under the circumstances that the west
coast faces?
Mr. Robinson. We have laid out options, options to
consider. It's hard to make recommendations--GAO likes to
confine its recommendations to management issues and the like
on account of efficiency. This involves sort of policy
decisions that would have implications all over the State of
Alaska and for everybody else. Obviously, there are very
special considerations for Alaskan villages and their
locations. But we presented our options as alternatives--policy
considerations for the Congress to consider without taking a
firm position as to which, if any, should be adopted. Any of
the four we laid out seems to me would change the equation for
villages and their ability to obtain funds.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Murkowski and I face the problem
almost daily of asking for an Alaska exception. I think
Congress is getting a little worn out about that. We need to
have some certainty in this area whether villages should be
treated alike or whether there should be particular categories
of exceptions that could be followed by the agencies involved,
FEMA and the Corps, or whether we should go down the list and
precisely lay down a category of assistance that would be
available in each area. When you're dealing with almost 200,
that's almost impossible in Federal law.
Mr. Robinson. The Corps can also, if directed--a directed
project by definition waives the cost-benefit requirement, and
that has been used on a number of projects across the country.
Chairman Stevens. General Davis, do you think we're at that
point where we ought to direct you to proceed without regard to
local contribution?
General Davis. Sir, I think there are a number of
alternatives that could be addressed policywise. One of those
is for erosion projects, we're not allowed to consider as an
alternative a nonstructural alternative. A fancy way of saying,
we can't consider relocation even though it may be a less
expensive alternative.
We have the authorities continuing in our CAP program,
continuing authorities program--gives us the ability to move
very quickly, but it's limited to a $1 million cap on the
Federal share. So there's a policy possibility there if we
could increase that limit.
We can consider waiving the cost sharing. All of these
would be changes to policy that we would need your help with,
but all of these would help us apply some of our capabilities,
our programs, more consistently in a situation that's very
rapidly sneaking up on us.
Chairman Stevens. Is your agency prepared to make
recommendations to Congress as to which option to pursue--
relocation versus mitigation versus building of structures to
prevent further erosion? Would you take on that task of
determining on a site-specific basis what is the best
recommendation or solution to follow?
General Davis. Sir, I think we try to consider all those in
all the studies that we do now. The challenge I mentioned is in
some of our authorities, because of existing policy, we're not
allowed to consider relocation. But it would clearly show up as
we did the economic analysis that that might be the most cost-
effective alternative.
The other piece that we have mentioned where we have no
mechanism to address right now is costs associated with social
and environmental considerations, and there's just nothing in
law right now that allows us to include them in our cost-
benefit analysis; therefore, a lot of projects that may be on
the borderline don't have the benefit of that analysis to go
with it.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
AIRPORT RELOCATIONS
Pat, how about terms of airports, are you prepared--do you
think it is your province to recommend to Congress which
airports must be relocated based upon the studies these other
agencies have made, or shall we have to face the question of
having the Corps or another entity tell us that that is the
preferred option? Can you make the determination? I know
several were flooded 2 years in a row now during parts of the
summer.
Mr. Poe. I think the first-tier consideration would not
come from the FAA. I think the village community and whoever
the airport sponsor is, whether that's the State or the
village, should have first say in what happens. Now, I think
the FAA should and does step in and say that there are
different mitigation solutions and we can speak to the degree
of funding available for each.
In some cases, rural Alaska being one, we have actually
done armor rock and so forth to prevent further erosion. In
other locations we have combined with other Federal agencies on
projects and used the same contractor. The direct answer to
your question is, I don't see the FAA as being the most
appropriate agency to step in and say where the villages should
and how the airport should follow.
FEMA'S PREVENTION AUTHORITY
Chairman Stevens. Mr. Pennington, I think you emphasized
that you come in after the fact. Is there anyplace that you
think we should change the laws so you have greater prevention
authority?
Mr. Pennington. Good question. There are two of the areas
that I pointed out that are actually prior to Pre-Disaster
Mitigation and the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. The
challenges that we run into in a lot of the Native village
communities, unfortunately, is--Shishmaref opted into the
National Flood Insurance Program. As I pointed out in my
testimony, the NFIP is a very self-sustaining fund. So they
opted in and as a result, they've gotten assistance, $600,000,
for relocation, elevation, et cetera.
Other Native village communities that are susceptible to
much of the damage have not opted in and have not been very
aggressive and, very candidly, we have been very cautious in
FEMA because we don't want to lead these communities into the
program where it might not be sustainable for them
economically. The government infrastructure may not be there to
enforce building codes, and once that disaster hits, because
they haven't appropriately complied with the NFIP laws, they
don't get Federal assistance. So we're very cautious how we
move into those areas.
But the pre-disaster mitigation plan, I think, is a good
example of getting in beforehand, certainly FMA. And in
FEMA's--I've been in FEMA for 2\1/2\ years as its regional
Director. One of our greatest strengths, Senator, is
coordination and collaboration. One of our witnesses mentioned
bundling of Federal funds. I do think that there's some merit
to that issue.
Where I think FEMA comes in is, it's really leading that
coordination and collaboration. We really truly are confined by
the Stafford Act. It pretty much says, until that declaration
comes in with those glaring exceptions, FEMA's programs pretty
much don't kick loose.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. I'll have other
comments later.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Well, the discussion--thank you, Mr.
Chairman--the discussion on this, and I'd like to go out there
one of these days and just take a look at that country. I want
to ask General Davis: Are these problems that we're
encountering now, is this a cyclical thing or is this a
continuing thing as conditions along the coast? Is it a
deteriorating thing? Is it over several years, or is it
cyclical or is it continuing?
General Davis. Sir, I'm not a scientist, but in the last
couple of years I've been exposed to coastal erosion issues
across the United States and I believe the scientists would
back me up and say it's a constant issue, that the whole--
anybody that lives along an ocean or along the Great Lakes,
there is kind of a constant erosion situation that's going to
go on and on. I think as we make decisions, we take that into
consideration and offer our best advice on whether we armor or
whether we try to relocate.
RELOCATE A VILLAGE
Senator Burns. We all understand the power and the
unpredictability of the ocean and we also understand that even
with our larger rivers inland, both in the 48 contiguous and
here in Alaska. And I guess it boils down to, do you make a
decision? Do we try to hold what we have? Or do we relocate
with the prospects of it probably never getting better or some
days the ocean will recede to reclaim those lands?
I think in a sense the American taxpayer didn't make the
decision on where to locate a village. In the first place, what
obligation does the American taxpayer have in order to
relocate? Those are questions that--Congress will ask those
questions just as sure as we're sitting here. We know most of
it--we would like to base it on economic reasons, but there's
also some cultural and social issues here where we do have an
obligation, I think, to protect and to foster.
So I would ask--I think those are the decisions that we
will have to make based on the information we get from GAO and
from our Senators that represent us up here. We will take
probably their lead on what to do.
Mr. Poe, with the FAA, have you already started doing some
studies, and if relocation is necessary, do you have a pretty
good idea what your role will be and where you can go with your
facilities to land aircraft in the outer banks?
Mr. Poe. Senator Burns, yes, we have what we call airport
and master plans, and we have funded those through the AIP
program. Those are underway. We have looked at and in fact have
taken action to relocate airports without the necessity to
relocate villages. So we are constantly working closely with
the community and with the State sponsors, which, by the way,
all airports are not sponsored by the State of Alaska. In many
cases it's the community itself.
Senator Burns. Well, I live down in Montana, you know, and
nature is a funny thing. You give unto nature what belongs to
nature and what she gives us we have to use very wisely. Those
are the unpredictable situations that we deal with. And
understanding that, there's going to be some tough decisions
made by these communities and these communities are going to
make those decisions.
They can't all be made in Washington, DC. After all, you
know, we have to do business in 17 square miles of logic-free
environment there. I look at it pretty much on the grounds of
what is doable and what is not doable.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Davis, you had in your written comments and in your
statement this morning pointed to the GAO study and title and
noted how appropriate the title is. We have so many of our
Native villages that are affected by flooding and erosion, but
few qualify for Federal assistance. In response to Senator
Stevens' questions, we were talking about the policy and you
would need assistance from Congress in effecting changes there.
Can you identify for me--when we're talking about
impediments, qualifications for Federal assistance, which
derive from statute and how much of it actually derives from
policy? What do we need to look to in statute and what do we
look to that's policy driven?
General Davis. I may need some help with that one. I'm not
sure I can distinguish between statute and policy. The cost-
sharing piece is law, so that would be statutory. Anywhere from
25 percent to 50 percent, depending on where we are in there.
The benefit-to-cost ratio of what we gain protecting versus
what it costs us to do it is a combination of both policy and
law. I probably owe you something in a follow-up, if you'd let
me, to give you a little bit more specifics as to which are
which to help you attack those.
Senator Murkowski. I think that would be helpful. If we're
trying to determine how we can assist here, we need to know
whether statutory changes need to be made versus what you can
effect by policy.
In your prepared testimony you made reference to the tribal
partnership program, which authorizes the feasibility studies
for projects that are located close to the Native villages or
located in Indian lands in the Lower 48. I understand that this
is a 50-percent cost-sharing requirement for this program. I
don't know in the Lower 48 the circumstances down there
necessarily, but certainly here in Alaska most of our
villages--we don't have those resources. We don't have Indian
gaming here in the State, as you know. Generally, we would be
unable to meet these specific cost-sharing requirements.
And then down in the Lower 48 I would imagine you're
looking at tribes that, unless they have the gaming, most
likely don't have access to the funds to meet this requirement.
So I guess my question to you is: Because of this cost-sharing
requirement being set at this 50-percent level, are you not
foreclosing the opportunity to really participate in the
programs because of this particular statutory requirement?
General Davis. I'd have to agree that that really puts the
burden on the Alaskan tribes and Native villages because they
don't have the same access to funds that they have in the Lower
48. I don't know where that direction came from. I'm advised
again that that was a statutory regulation. That's not one of
the Corps' policies, but that was a stipulation put on us.
But I'd like to prove that with some background, ma'am.
Senator Murkowski. Again, that would be helpful to know, if
we wanted to look at that to make some fixes there. One more
just in terms of this cost sharing and the impact to those that
might be able to take advantage of these programs.
Also, this is in your prepared comments, was reference that
the Corps programs don't permit your agency to fund more than x
dollars per project. We know, of course, here in Alaska that
our construction and transportation costs are just plain and
simple higher than they are anywhere else in the country. Has
the Corps considered--or what would your opinion be in terms of
hiking these ceilings to recognize the high-cost locations like
we have here in Alaska? Is that something that has been
considered?
General Davis. Yes, ma'am. It's interesting how many of the
same challenges we share. Mr. Poe was talking about the cost of
construction for airports. We certainly have the same
challenges on relocations or armoring the shore. For those that
are not familiar with Alaska, my last job was in California.
And to haul rock to some of these locations would be equivalent
to quarrying on Playa Linda off of the coast of Los Angeles and
then dragging it up to Seattle to put it on the shore in
Seattle.
One of our most valuable authorities is probably section
14, which gives us a very quick solution--a very quick review
process, but it limits us to $1 million plus the cost share. An
example at Shishmaref would be of the entire coastline that's
affected there, we're able to use that authority to protect a
school, but that's like putting a Band-Aid on the entire
coastline there, which would take care of the school, but the
rest of the coast is at risk.
So that's one of the issues that I mentioned earlier where
it would give us more capability to act and react if that limit
could be raised beyond the current $1 million limit.
Senator Murkowski. $1 million doesn't go very far up here.
General Davis. I know it. We didn't talk about bringing the
equipment in, bringing the fuel in, as well as bringing the
materials in. So it's a pretty big challenge. I understand
Senator Stevens is tired of going to the well to explain why
things are unique up here, but there are some differences.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we will just have to continue
educating people. That's why it helps to have people like
Senator Burns and Senator Sununu here who are listening and
understanding, but the challenges that we do have here are
extreme in some instances. So I'll look forward to kind of the
breakdown, if you will, between the statutory versus the
policies. I think that would be interesting to look at.
Mr. Robinson, I appreciate the four recommendations--I
don't know whether you call them recommendations, but the
factors that have to be considered that came out of the GAO
report. As I looked at them, I guess I made the assumption that
these were recommendations that should all be considered and
that this is not, we'll do this one at the expense of the
others.
For instance, the comment that was made both by yourself
and General Davis about the importance of having social and
environmental factors considered. I would like to think that we
would be able to have that included, as well as a good
discussion about waiving the Federal cost-share requirement. So
I just want to make sure on the record that what you have
proposed in this report are not mutually exclusive; if you
accept one, then we don't need the others.
Mr. Robinson. They are not mutually exclusive. I mean,
there are differences that could be adopted, but perhaps it's a
matter of nuance. We are relatively sensitive to making
recommendations on policy issues. We have been counseled from a
variety of forums that that's not a good role for the General
Accounting Office, so we tend to try to cast these things as
options, legitimate policy options for the Congress to
consider. If we thought they were illegitimate, we wouldn't
have put them on the table to begin with.
Senator Murkowski. Well, you didn't. Therefore, you would
not be willing to prioritize any of these four?
Mr. Robinson. Yeah, I would just mention that the one
that's probably most cost neutral, if you will, the bundling
option, is more of a mechanical common sense kind of a thing.
If you've got multiple agencies who can each bring a relatively
small number of dollars to the table, and each of those would
bring a different set of paperwork and additional requirement
and additional standards to meet, if you could establish a
mechanism to bundle all those relatively small sources of funds
together under one set of requirements, it makes a world of
sense from a common-sense standpoint to have that kind of
option available to you. That would lessen the cost no more
than having them all available separately.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Pennington, I have to admit a little
bit of confusion here. The question was asked, how much can you
do from a preventive perspective as opposed to coming in and
cleaning up the mess afterwards. You mentioned the pre-disaster
relief and flood mitigation, but I think what I understood from
your comments is that it is not appropriate or it doesn't make
economic sense to certain villages to take advantage of the
flood insurance? Help me out here.
Mr. Pennington. I actually stated it a little awkwardly.
The last thing I would ever want to do is lead a Native village
into the National Flood Insurance Program knowing that the
policies are relatively expensive--they're very expensive, and
I would not want them to end up defaulting on those policies
and then somehow be caught up in the bureaucratic mess that
could deny them Federal assistance in the long haul. So we're
very cautious about going into those communities.
Any day, any moment, as soon as this hearing is over, if a
community wants to jump into the National Flood Insurance
Program, we're willing to go there. Shishmaref, like I
mentioned, is in the program. And I think the number of
policies that are actually issued there are very small. I think
it's anywhere from two to nine--I've got the numbers. That
gives them the ability to receive FMA dollars. But because
there's that lack of building enforcement codes, et cetera, and
the expense--I don't want to see the tribes and the Native
villagers go broke paying the policies in the process of trying
to save the homes just so they can qualify for FMA dollars, if
that makes sense.
So we don't have a lot of requests--we have no requests
from them to get into the NFIP at this point. We consult with
our State partners and those Native villagers and can certainly
do that, but we're just a little cautious.
Senator Murkowski. So it's fair to say that you don't go
out and advertise and say, come on, we've got a program that
can assist you from a prevention perspective recognizing that
in many of these villages they won't be able to qualify in the
first place because of certain code issues?
Mr. Pennington. I think the short answer is yes and no.
Yes, it's a widely popular, widely known, widely advertised
program throughout our entire region. How we apply that, like
you mentioned in your previous comments about Alaska's Native
villages, they are different. They're out there. We just want
to make sure that trying to apply that one the broad brush NFIP
approach, that if we apply it in those Native villages that
it's going to work. And I'm not sure that it necessarily can
just yet there because of the economic consequences to the
families up front and perhaps in the long haul.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether any
of the panelists know, or perhaps you do, whether there has
been an effort in the past to do any kind of a coordinated
authority to study these issues. If there hasn't, it certainly
might be appropriate to have an authority, an erosion control
authority that would review and work with the collaboration
coordination of the spectrum, as Mr. Pennington was talking
about. That might be something that the committee would want to
consider.
Chairman Stevens. I think it's a good idea. I think we
ought to pose that question to the agencies. That would be
another panel of agencies, also. Seems to me if you follow
through on that idea, we should ask Federal agencies and State
agencies to come together in an authority and see if we could
authorize that authority to have funding under new standards
that would give the discretion to waive or limit the local
contribution, but also would have a requirement that if it gets
to be a decision to relocate, that that relocation would have
to be approved by Congress.
I think we could have mitigation and control authority
immediately. I do not think we can get the money in a time
sufficiently that's large enough money-wise to move these
villages if it's going to cost, as anticipated, up to $100
million or more to move one village. I do think that's a good
idea if we could get together quickly. When we get back, we'll
request the meeting of your agencies in Washington and see if
we can come to an agreement before we have the appropriations
bill for water and power and see if we can't put in there some
basic new authorities that will give the flexibility that these
witnesses indicate is necessary.
We'll follow through on that suggestion, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Sununu.
Senator Sununu. Thank you.
Mr. Robinson, you mentioned bundling, the process of
bundling, and the degree to which it might make a difference in
helping villages support some of these costs. Are there any
other circumstances that you're aware of where this kind of
approach or process has been used?
Mr. Robinson. Yes. I think BIA is using something very
comparable. I think they're quite pleased with the flexibility
and the common sense that that's offering them and the ability
to get something done with the minimum of administrative costs
and the like.
Senator Sununu. Are there statutory or legal hurdles to
this being done?
Mr. Robinson. I believe a statutory exemption would be
necessary to possibly meet the need to comply with every
agency's individual set of regulations and the like in the
concept of the bundling exercise, yes.
Senator Sununu. In your report you talk about the cost of
relocating villages, and the figures that I recall range
between $100 million and $400 million in one case.
Mr. Robinson. Yes, sir.
Senator Sununu. One, that's an enormous amount of money.
But, two, that's a very broad range. What are the key factors
that create such a significant cost, and why is the uncertainty
so great to have to provide such a range?
Mr. Robinson. In the one case, which is the only case where
we have a firm estimate, which is the Kivalina case, site A
would cost roughly $100 million, maybe a little more than that,
based on Corps analysis. Site B would cost well over $400
million.
It's a difference in the site and the volume of gravel
that's necessary to arrange the privilege to protect, the
permafrost, to insulate the permafrost, if you will; and brings
it above the flood areas. So it's the volume of gravel and, as
the General mentioned, the hauling of 8 to 10 inches of gravel
hundreds of miles to cover hundreds of acres. It's no small
undertaking especially in this high-cost environment.
Senator Sununu. General Davis, were the sites that were
assessed chosen by the Army Corps, the GAO, the village?
General Davis. I think it was a combination of what the
locals were asking for and what we were advising under the best
engineering practices as the most efficient sites as far as the
engineering piece. The other piece in difference in cost is not
fully knowing where were the sources of material, whether we
could get something locally and bring it in at a low cost or
whether it would have to be shipped great distances at a very
exorbitant cost.
Senator Sununu. Finally, your testimony mentioned a number
of flood/erosion projects that you had undertaken successfully.
What key factors would you identify for being the drivers
behind the success of those projects?
General Davis. I think probably one of the key factors is
one we're already familiar with and that is that it was before
cost sharing, so we didn't have that additional challenge of a
poor community trying to find their cost share. What we found
that worked, though, is an aggressive, astute, educated, local
constituency that is willing to work with the State and Federal
agencies, that understands the process.
A very key factor is the congressional support that the
members here in Alaska have given to these projects because
most of them don't meet the benefit-to-cost ratios and,
therefore, have to be authorized, as opposed to a project that
we would recommend. But it's initiative and understanding the
process and working through the process.
Senator Sununu. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. I do hope that we
can find a way to get together and deal with this.
My last question would be: Is there any one of these
villages that must be done this year?
Mr. Robinson. There are four of them that are categorized
as having imminent problems. The problem is, Senator, that I
don't think any of them are imminently preparing to move. The
site selection issues--Newtok might be the farthest along
because it has a land exchange already worked out with the Fish
and Wildlife Service. Others are still considering sites.
Koyukuk is way deep in the decision-making process. So I
don't think anything is imminent. All the planning and site
selection issues still have to be completed in most of the
villages.
Chairman Stevens. It would be my hope that next year at
this time we could arrange a field trip and take the Members
that are interested out to a series of sites and get an in-
depth understanding of some of these problems. I look forward
to talking with you all when we get back to Washington and this
meeting we hope to have to see if we can prioritize some of
these and set up a time to go. Maybe we'd have to go earlier in
the spring to see the real problem. But I think a field trip up
there would be helpful to us.
The members have this map in front of us of the nine
villages that were really highlighted by the GAO report. We're
talking about from Maine to Florida, the distance between some
of these. So it's not a locals problem in the sense of
distance. It's an enormous problem to deal with the logistics
of being able to handle even two of these at the same time with
the same agencies; Corps of Engineers working in Bethel and
working in Barrow or Kaktovik at the same time. The range of
distance is the coastline of the South 48.
So I don't think it's going to be easy to marshal the
forces to do more than one or two of these in 1 year. We have
to prioritize where we're going as soon as we can.
Mr. Robinson. That's a good point. I would say that that
work is not theoretical. We visited four villages and our audit
teams came back from visiting the sites with their eyes wide
open as to the gravity of the issue.
Chairman Stevens. General Davis.
General Davis. Sir, I'd like to follow up on your point of
looking at, say, 1 year. One of my additional duties is to be a
member of the Corps' Coastal Engineering Research Board. This
is chaired by our Director of Civil Works. Three division
commanders sit on there and three outside coastal experts sit
on there. We meet twice a year.
We met earlier this month and discussed where our next
meetings would be. They asked me to host a meeting in Hawaii. I
told them, if you're asking me to host a meeting, there are
much more pressing coastal issues in Alaska, so we recommend
that we hold one of our next two meetings in Alaska. November
is probably not the right time. We're looking at next May,
June, bringing that board up here that makes recommendations to
the Chief of Engineers on where to focus his research efforts
in coastal engineering.
So I think it would fit well. Perhaps we might be able to
tie it in with a future hearing. It helps us address one of the
challenges that we have, as Senator Burns mentioned, is we
don't know what we don't know. We won't have the same weight
gauge and technical data-gathering equipment here on the
Alaskan coast as we have along the Lower 48. So I think it's
another step going forward toward the long-range solution that
focuses some of our capabilities here in the State.
Chairman Stevens. That's a great suggestion. Maybe we could
arrange the hearing in Hawaii in November and the field trip in
the summer.
General Davis. I think the rest are going to be in the
District of Columbia unfortunately. So you're welcome to come
by and visit us.
Chairman Stevens. On the next panel will be Wayne Mundy,
Administrator of the Alaska Office of Native American Programs,
Public and Indian Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development; Edgar Blatchford, the Commissioner of the
Department of Community and Economic Development; and Mr. David
E. Liebersbach, Director of the Division of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management.
It is time for our first break.
We appreciate your attendance and ask that you keep
comments to 8 minutes so we can keep to our schedule today.
I'll call first Mr. Wayne Mundy, Administrator of the Alaska
Office of Native American Programs, Department of Housing and
Urban Development. Mr. Mundy.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE MUNDY, ADMINISTRATOR, ALASKA OFFICE
OF NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Mundy. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify on this topic, which is so
vital to many Alaska communities. Secretary Jackson and
Assistant Secretary Liu extend their support to the committee's
efforts to take a serious look at these issues. Since housing
is a critical component of any community, it is important that
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, be aware
of and participate in Alaska's efforts to deal with erosion and
flooding issues.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you,
Chairman Stevens, Senator Murkowski and Representative Young
for your ongoing advocacy on behalf of the housing and
community development needs of American Indians and Alaska
Native peoples throughout the Nation, and especially in Alaska.
Flooding, and the resulting erosion problems have hurt many
villages, rendering some locations permanently uninhabitable.
HUD programs offer several options to address these problems,
or, when necessary, move the village. These programs include
the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination
Acts Program, NAHASDA; the Indian Community Development Block
Grant Program, ICDBG; the Rural Housing and Economic
Development Program; the State Community Development Block
Grant Program; and the Home Investment Partnership Program.
These sources could be used to help a community develop
capacity as well as to study, plan and help finance community
relocation.
We also have two guaranteed loan programs that can provide
additional funding sources to assist tribes in leveraging their
funds and placing income-eligible families in their own homes.
The title VI program allows the tribe or its tribally
designated housing entity, TDHE, to leverage their NAHASDA
funds and pledge future grants as collateral. This loan
guarantee could be used to fund infrastructure construction as
well as fund new home acquisition and construction. The Section
184 Loan Guarantee Program provides the tribe, their TDHE or an
individual Alaska Native family with a Federal loan guarantee
for the purpose of building or acquiring new housing units. At
present, both loan funds are significantly undersubscribed.
I am pleased to report that in Alaska, tribes, TDHEs and
Alaska Natives are taking advantage of new opportunities to
improve their housing conditions by using the Section 184 Loan
Guarantee Program. This loan guarantee program is an important
part of the administration's efforts to increase home ownership
opportunities for the American people, and nowhere is this more
important than in Alaska Native villages. I'm proud to report
to you that Alaska leads all area offices of Native American
programs in this effort. To date, nearly 350 loan guarantees
have been issued in Alaska.
Chairman Stevens. How many?
Mr. Mundy. Over 350, sir.
HUD certainly appreciates the contribution of the General
Accounting Office in understanding the impact on erosion and
flooding. I would like to offer some thoughts based on our
experience and involvement with Alaska Native villages.
It is critical that the social impact be considered in the
analyses by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, as Senator Murkowski has
already pointed out. Alaska's Native villages are isolated
communities with unique cultures based on local subsistence
practices. We believe a thorough evaluation of the costs and
the socioeconomic issues would provide a fuller assessment of
any proposed actions.
Alaska Native villages are generally dependent on the State
and Federal governments. Rarely do Alaska Native villages have
a tax base or other funding source to meet the cost-sharing
requirements for existing programs to address flooding and
erosion. In order for Alaska Native villages to access these
programs, it may be necessary to waive or substantially reduce
the cost-sharing requirements.
In the recent past some communities that have decided to
undertake village relocation have found themselves eliminated
or adversely impacted in their efforts to obtain grants that
would allow them to maintain the investments already made at
their current locations. Decisions on how long to maintain or
operate the existing facilities, and when to stop and begin the
relocation are appropriate issues for mutual agreement between
the grantors and grantee. This would ensure appropriations are
wisely spent and not totally lost when a move occurs.
In HUD's opinion, the bundling of funding sources makes
very good sense. However, within the GAO report there was no
discussion of the barriers on matching funds from different
agencies with different restrictions on the funding. One of the
most obvious barriers would be the variety of environmental
assessment and review processes used by the probable partners.
We recommend that the agencies get together to identify
barriers in bundling their funds and consider whether it would
be appropriate to make joint recommendations for possible
legislative or regulatory or changes to minimize the barriers.
Clearly, the solution to this problem is beyond the control
and funding of any single agency. Solutions will only be
reached through the cooperation of the tribes, the local
governments, the State agencies, the Federal agencies and any
private sector entities that are involved. We should be
challenged not just to look at the historic solutions to these
problems; we need to apply creative remedies and be willing to
explore alternatives.
We do not fully understand the causes of flooding and
erosion, only that there are communities in distress, and HUD
possesses some of the tools to help address those issues. This
hearing offers the opportunity to explore real solutions, even
if those solutions may be long term. With the collective wisdom
and desire of all involved, we believe reasonable solutions may
be found. Again, HUD stands ready to be an active and willing
partner in this effort, and we applaud your efforts and
leadership in this area.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you for saying your agency is
available to work with us. That's very good.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wayne Mundy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on this topic, which is so vital to many Alaska
communities. Secretary Jackson and Assistant Secretary Liu extend their
support to the Committee's efforts to take a serious look at these
issues. Since housing is a critical component of any community, it is
important that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) be
aware of and participate in Alaska's efforts to deal with erosion and
flooding.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you, Chairman
Stevens, Senator Murkowski and Representative Young for your ongoing
advocacy on behalf of the housing and community development needs of
American Indians and Alaska Native peoples throughout the Nation, and
especially in Alaska.
Introduction
Flooding, and the resulting erosion problems have hurt many
villages, rendering some locations permanently uninhabitable. HUD
programs offer several options to address these problems or, when
necessary, move the village. These programs include the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act's (NAHASDA) Indian
Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program; the Indian Community Development
Block Grant (ICDBG) program; the Rural Housing and Economic Development
(RHED) program; the State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program; and the HOME Investment Partnership Program. These sources
could be used to help a community develop capacity as well as to study,
plan and help finance community relocation.
We also have two guaranteed loan programs that can provide
additional funding sources to assist tribes in leveraging their funds
and placing income-eligible families in their own homes. The Title VI
program allows the tribe or its tribally designated housing entity
(TDHE) to leverage their IHBG funds and pledge future grants as
collateral. This loan guarantee could be used to fund infrastructure
construction as well as fund new home acquisition and construction. The
Section 184 Loan Guarantee program provides the tribe, their TDHE or an
individual Alaska Native family with a Federal loan guarantee for the
purpose of building or acquiring new housing units. At present, both
loan funds are significantly undersubscribed. I encourage lenders,
tribes and their TDHEs to take a close look at the benefits they can
realize by using these programs to enhance housing development and the
necessary community infrastructure.
I am pleased to report that in Alaska, tribes, TDHEs and Alaska
Natives are taking advantage of new opportunities to improve their
housing conditions by using the Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program.
This federally guaranteed home mortgage loan program is an important
part of this Administration's efforts to increase homeownership
opportunities for the American people, and nowhere is this more
important that in Alaska Native villages. I am proud to report to you
that Alaska leads all Area Offices of Native American Programs in this
effort. To date, nearly 350 loan guarantees have been issued in Alaska.
Erosion and Flooding Issues
HUD certainly appreciates the contribution of the General
Accounting Office in understanding the impact of erosion and flooding.
I would like to offer some thoughts, based on our experience and
involvement with Alaska Native villages.
It is critical that the social impact be considered in the analyses
by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). Alaska Native villages are isolated communities with
unique cultures based on local subsistence practices. We believe a
thorough evaluation of the costs and the socio-economic issues would
provide a fuller assessment of any proposed actions.
Alaska Native villages are generally dependent on the state and
federal governments. Rarely do Alaska Native villages have a tax base
or other funding source to meet the cost-sharing requirements for
existing programs to address flooding and erosion. In order for Alaska
Native villages to access these programs, it may be necessary to waive
or substantially reduce the cost-sharing requirements.
In the recent past, some communities that have decided to undertake
village relocation have found themselves eliminated or adversely
impacted in their efforts to obtain grants that would allow them to
maintain the investments already made at their current locations.
Decisions on how long to maintain or operate the existing facilities,
and when to stop and begin the relocation are appropriate issues for
mutual agreement between the grantor and grantee. This would ensure
appropriations are wisely spent and not totally lost when a move
occurs.
In HUD's opinion, the bundling of funding sources makes very good
sense. However, there was no discussion of the barriers on matching
funding from different agencies with different restrictions on the
funding. One of the most obvious barriers would be the variety of
environmental assessment and review processes used by the probable
partners. We recommend the agencies get together to identify barriers
in bundling their funds and consider whether it would be appropriate to
make joint recommendations for possible legislative or regulatory
changes to minimize the barriers.
Clearly, the solution to this problem is beyond the control and
funding of any single agency. Solutions will only be reached through
the cooperation of the tribes, the local governments, the state
agencies, the federal agencies and any private sector entities that are
involved. We should be challenged not just to look at the historic
solutions to these problems; we need to apply creative remedies and be
willing to explore alternatives. We do not fully understand the causes
of flooding and erosion, only that there are communities in distress,
and HUD possesses some of the tools to assist them. This hearing offers
the opportunity to explore real solutions, even if they are long-term.
With the collective wisdom and desire of all involved, we believe
reasonable solutions may be found. Again, HUD stands ready to be an
active and willing partner in this effort, and we again applaud your
leadership.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Chairman Stevens. Our next witness is Edgar Blatchford,
Commissioner for the Department of Community and Economic
Development and the former mayor of Seward. Good morning.
STATEMENT OF EDGAR BLATCHFORD, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Mr. Blatchford. Good morning, Senator, and members of the
committee. Thank you very much for allowing me to testify
before you. This is a very important hearing for the people of
Alaska, particularly rural Alaska in the unorganized borough.
I am the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Community
and Economic Development. Mr. Chairman, the Department's name
will be changed effective September 2 to the Alaska Department
of Commerce and Economic Development. If you notice a change
later, it's because of the legislature and the Governor's
office changing the name of the department.
I'm here on, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on
behalf of the State and on behalf of the Governor and we are
seeking assistance from the Federal Government and direction
from the Senate Appropriations Committee. Erosion and flooding
is endemic to our State with nearly all of our communities
having some type of flooding and/or erosion impact, as I would
venture may be the case in many of the communities in each of
the other home States of the members of the committee. Where
the problem in Alaska differs is where Native communities,
primarily in what we refer to as the unorganized borough where
there's no regional government or county equivalent exists and
those communities are most at risk. A few villages, Mr.
Chairman, have no room for gradual retreat--the moving back of
homes and infrastructure as is occurring in numerous
communities throughout our State.
Retreat is no longer an option. For a few villages complete
relocation is likely to be the only viable alternative. We
cannot fund this daunting task on our own.
Senator Stevens, I believe, has asked us here today to
focus on the particular dilemma of this handful of communities
that are named in the December 2003 General Accounting Office
report titled ``Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by
Flooding and Erosion, But Few Qualify For Federal Assistance.''
If we together with Federal agencies lead assistance, we can
forge a roadmap for these few. We will also be paving the way
for improved planning and development guidelines for the many
villages that are at risk, but have not passed into this
imminent threat of loss category.
Shishmaref, Newtok, Koyukuk, Kivalina--these villages have
not caught up with the visions of sustainability that we push
communities to strive for and support through the Denali
Commission and our other partner agencies.
Their needs for basic services--a sewer system, a new
clinic, improved water supply--are real, but unfortunately must
be put on hold because of the high risk in their current
village location. In most of the risk communities structural
erosion/flood control measures are not a cost-effective option,
but in the case of Shishmaref are still being tried. I fear
these costly measures will only continue to divert our monetary
resources and energies from the primary need--relocation.
Federally led village relocation planning will need to
continue, but has not been well supported at the State level
because of a lack of funding and staff. The State encourages
the Federal lead on relocation planning efforts, but would like
to see ties to the Governor's Access to the Future initiative
to see if relocation sites may support more locally sustainable
economies.
The erosion planning relocation efforts the Department has
led, for example, Alakanuk's Erosion and Land Use Plan, found
other Federal resources and programs were difficult to tap to
move threatened structures, as Federal authorities are not
focused or applicable to village relocation needs.
The Department, Division of Community Advocacy's floodplain
management efforts have tried to integrate sound erosion
management policies with our floodplain management program, but
frankly this is difficult without a Federal erosion policy or
Federal guidance. For example, the current multimillion dollar,
5-year effort to modernize the Nation's flood maps--for which
we are very grateful for and encourage continued Senate
Appropriations Committee support--we are told that FEMA flood
mapping dollars cannot be used for delineating an erosion risk.
Our department is leading this important flood map update
effort and will try, with limited resources, to include erosion
risk areas on our rural community-based mapping effort. Sound
identification of risks is vital to avoid the many problems of
the past, including community infrastructure in harm's way.
As the State coordinating department for floodplain
management in Alaska, our mission is to ``provide technical
assistance and coordination to reduce public and private sector
losses and damage from flooding and erosion, primarily to those
cities and boroughs that participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program.'' Please understand one person in the State
is tasked with this daunting mission and the department has no
dedicated program funds to mitigate the significant flood and
erosion threats facing families and communities throughout
Alaska. Nor, to the best of our knowledge, do any State of
Alaska programs address erosion, unless as a special
legislative appropriation-directed activity.
Our Department's flood and erosion management mission,
however, is dwarfed by our larger departmental mission of
promoting economically sustainable communities. Now is the time
to see how, with Federal support, we can merge these two
missions.
Federal resources must be brought to focus in assisting the
most threatened villages. We must come together in a Federal-
State partnership to tackle a comprehensive and coordinated
plan of action for the most threatened communities named in the
GAO report. We do not see this as an easy add-on to the
existing authority of the Denali Commission, as suggested in
the GAO report, but would welcome discussion of methods to
proceed with a Federal-State partnership to address the
problem.
My staff will be listening closely to comments, suggestions
and directions that may come from this important hearing, as
staff is in the midst of preparing a Five-Year Comprehensive
Floodplain Management Strategy for Alaska.
Thank you for holding this hearing and for permitting me to
testify. I welcome your questions and appeal for your support
on behalf of our most at-risk communities. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. Glad to have your
comments.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edgar Blatchford
Thank you, Mister Chairman and members of the Committee for
traveling to Alaska to hold this important hearing, and for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of the State and the Department of
Community and Economic Development.
I am testifying before you because of our department's Alaska
Constitutional mandate to assist communities. Thus I serve as spokesman
for all of rural Alaska.
Frankly Senators, you would not be here today if we did not need
the help of the Federal Government and the direction of the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
Erosion and flooding is certainly endemic to our State, with nearly
all of our communities having some type of a flooding and/or erosion
impact, as I would venture may be the case in many of the communities
in each of your home states. Where the problem in Alaska differs is
where Native communities, primarily in what we refer to as the
Unorganized Borough (no regional government or county-equivalent
exists), are most at risk. A few villages have no room for gradual
retreat--the moving back of homes and infrastructure as is occurring in
numerous communities throughout our state.
Retreat is no longer an option. For a few villages complete
relocation is likely to be the only viable alternative. We cannot fund
this daunting task on our own.
Senator Stevens, I believe, has asked us here today to focus on the
particular dilemma of this handful of communities that are named in the
December 2003 General Accounting Office (GAO) report: Alaska Native
Villages: Most are Affected By Flooding and Erosion, But Few Qualify
for Federal Assistance. If together with Federal lead assistance we can
forge a road-map for these few, we will also be paving the way for
improved planning and development guidelines for the many villages that
are at risk but have not passed into this Imminent Threat of Loss
category.
Shishmaref, Newtok, Koyukuk, Kivalina--these villages have not
caught up with the visions of sustainability that we push communities
to strive for and support through the Denali Commission and our other
partner agencies.
Their needs for basic services--a sewer system, a new clinic,
improved water supply--are real but unfortunately must be on hold
because of the high risk in their current village location. In most at
risk communities, structural erosion/flood control measures are not a
cost effective option--but in the case of Shishmaref are still being
tried--I fear these costly measures will only continue to divert our
monetary resources and energies from the primary need--relocation.
Federally led village relocation planning will need to continue but
has not been well supported at the State level because of a lack of
funding and staff. The State encourages the federal lead on relocation
planning efforts, but would like to see ties to the Governor's Access
to the Future initiative to see if relocation sites may support more
locally sustainable economies. The erosion planning relocation efforts
the department has led (for example, Alakanuk's Erosion & Land Use
Plan) found other federal resources and programs were difficult to tap
to move threatened structures, as federal authorities are not focused
or applicable to village relocation needs.
The DCED, Division of Community Advocacy's floodplain management
efforts has tried to integrate sound erosion management policies with
our floodplain management program, but frankly this is difficult
without a federal erosion policy, or federal guidance. For example the
current multi-million dollar, five-year effort to modernize the
Nation's flood maps--for which we are very grateful for and encourage,
continued Senate Appropriations Committee support--we are told that
FEMA flood mapping dollars cannot be used for delineating an erosion
risk. Our department is leading this important flood map update effort
and will try, with limited resources, to include erosion risk areas on
our rural community base mapping effort. Sound identification of risks
is vital to avoid the many problems of the past--locating community
infrastructure in harm's way.
As the State-coordinating department for floodplain management in
Alaska--our mission is to ``provide technical assistance and
coordination to reduce public and private sector losses and damage from
flooding and erosion, primarily to those cities and borough's that
participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)''. Please
understand one person in the State is tasked with this daunting mission
and the Department has no dedicated program funds to mitigate the
significant flood and erosion threats facing families and communities
throughout Alaska. Nor, to the best of our knowledge, do any State of
Alaska programs address erosion--unless as a special Legislative
appropriation directed activity.
Our Department's flood and erosion management mission, however, is
dwarfed by our larger departmental mission of promoting economically
sustainable communities. Now is the time to see how, with federal
support, we can merge these two Missions.
Federal resources must be brought to focus in assisting the most
threatened villages. We must come together in a Federal-State
partnership to tackle a comprehensive and coordinated plan of action
for the most threatened communities named in the GAO report. We do not
see this as an easy add-on to the existing authority of the Denali
Commission, as suggested in the GAO report, but would welcome
discussion of methods to proceed with a Federal-State partnership to
address the problem.
My staff will be listening closely to comments, suggests and
directions that may come from this important hearing, as staff is in
the midst of preparing a Five-Year Comprehensive Floodplain Management
Strategy for Alaska.
Thank you for holding this hearing and for permitting me to
testify. I welcome your questions and appeal for your support on behalf
of our most at-risk communities.
Additional Background
The GAO Report on Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion
recommended that the Denali Commission's role be expanded; likewise
DCED is often named as the possible agency to ``lead'' a State (non-
disaster) erosion response effort. DCED, since inception, has been the
Governor's designated lead State coordinating agency for the National
Flood Insurance Program; leads the Flood Mitigation Assistance planning
and project development; and now is lead for Modernizing Flood Maps.
Staffing is insufficient to meet these existing and growing demands.
If delegated, DCED would lead coordination if adequately funded. As
the Alaska Land Managers Cooperative Task Force subcommittee on
floodplain management reported 25 years ago, ``Substantial evidence
indicates there does not now exist on the State level an adequate
program for floodplain planning and management.'' DCED or any other
State agency would not be able to be an effective ``lead agency''
without clearly stated and adopted roles, responsibilities and
functions for a comprehensive erosion area development policy requiring
concurrence and coordination with all agencies affected by such
actions.
DCED encourages the Senate Appropriations Committee to consider
increasing support for better statewide hydrologic information that
would be of great use to many users including developers, consultants,
agencies organizations and private individuals for the engineering
design, planning, forecast, monitoring, and other purposes. There is
strong need for a comprehensive State stream gauging system to better
define flooding events--especially in rapidly developing areas such as
the fast growing Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks North Star Borough and
Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs.
Our State Floodplain Management Coordinator assisted the GAO
extensively in their study. Flooding and erosion affect a significant
number of Alaskan communities. We agree with the GAO study, indicating
that the villages of Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok and Shishmaref face
increased danger from floods and erosion. Some of these communities
have sought assistance with relocation, which is also a goal we
support.
Unless a funded, interdisciplinary, systematic approach to
relocation is undertaken to assist these most threatened communities,
structures will continue to be temporarily moved back to avoid loss,
but relocation has not, and will not, occur in several years.
Relocation has been a topic of discussion and study for Kivalina,
Shishmaref and Newtok for at least two decades.
DCED would like to see the federal disaster assistance programs
included in the many assistance mechanisms that will be needed to
address the relocation needs of these most threatened Alaska villages.
In particular, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program credited by
General Accounting Office as funding the move of fourteen homes in
Shishmaref after the 1997 storm, is now limited by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency guidance only to ``repetitive loss
structures'' as eligible rather than including ``structures subject to
imminent collapse or subsidence as a result of erosion or flooding'' as
is allowable under the Congressional authorizing language.\1\ This
unfairly limits a viable federal funding mechanism that has
successfully mitigated the loss of many structures in Shishmaref but
currently cannot be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Section 1366(e)(5) Eligible Activities (A) of The National
Flood Insurance Act of 196 as Amended by the National Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically the State has provided the nonfederal matching funds
for most Corps of Engineers (and other federal projects) faced by the
State of Alaska. However, the matching funds have been severely
limited. There is no dedicated State fund for relocation, erosion or
structural flood control. A number of special legislative pass-through
grants and Community Development Block Grants have been used to fund
erosion studies and relocation planning projects but no direct general
fund exists at the State level.
To some extent, as many as 213 villages are ``affected'' by erosion
because erosion is a naturally occurring process. Data collection needs
some framework for quantification. Standard(s) for measurement; erosion
zone guidance and federal (or state) standards by which to judge
erosion risk are needed. The national standard for designing,
development and siting for the ``100-year flood'' event exists and is
quantifiable and measurable. A standard for erosion, such as a distance
measurement needs to be established (such as the life of the structure,
which itself may need to be standardized--50-year life for a house,
etc.). Congress has provided limited authorization to implement a
coastal erosion management program,\2\ but this has not advanced to the
level of Executive Orders for guiding federal floodplain and wetlands
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Managing Coastal Erosion, National Research Council (Library of
Congress CC# 89-13845).
Chairman Stevens. Our next witness is Dave Liebersbach,
Director of the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management. Thank you very much for being here.
STATEMENT OF DAVID E. LIEBERSBACH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION
OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT, FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA
Mr. Liebersbach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for the opportunity to testify in this hearing
today. I appreciate the leadership this committee is providing
by focusing attention on the problems of flooding and erosion
that threaten Alaska's community.
As director for the State's emergency management
organization, there are three points I'll make today: First,
the problems of erosion and flooding are significant dangers to
many Alaskan communities. Second, the solution to the problems
created by flooding and erosion lay beyond the existing
capabilities of the communities and the State.
Third, failure to find a solution to the flooding and
erosion problems of our communities will place many Alaskan
residents at an increasing risk in future years.
My agency, the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, acting under the authority of the Governor of
Alaska, will assist in protecting life and property when local
governments are overwhelmed by natural disasters or acts of
terrorism. Additionally, we assist the State, local governments
and private institutions in planning and preparing for
disasters or terrorism events.
Our mission is defined by law in Alaska Statute, title 26,
chapter 23, which states, ``The Governor is responsible for
meeting the dangers presented by disasters to the State and its
people.'' Disasters are defined as the ``occurrence or imminent
threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or
property, or shortage of food, water or fuel from an
incident.''
The law limits the response by the Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management to events which pose ``a
widespread and severe threat'' to human life or property. One
home being washed away by a flood is a tragedy. It is not,
however, a State disaster because it is neither ``widespread''
nor ``severe.''
Similarly, the constantly changing courses of our rivers
and eroding coastlines are causing tragedies in local
communities, but not disasters. The village of Noatak is but
one example where gradually, house by house, one-half the
village has been forced to relocate as the riverbank erodes.
The residents have accomplished this, as is proper, without any
assistance from my agency.
Since the 1977 reorganization of this agency, the division
has been involved in over 200 disaster events of varying size,
dealing with every type of hazard. In the last 20 years we have
responded to 97 flooding or erosion disaster events, which
account for 51 percent of our responses. We can only guess what
the next 20 years will bring, but we can improve our situation
with good mitigation measures.
Elevating or relocating structures are examples of disaster
mitigation. However, outside of a federally declared disaster,
the State of Alaska has no program to fund disaster mitigation
projects. For a federally declared disaster the State may spend
up to 7\1/2\ percent of the total disaster funding on approved
mitigation projects. Currently, we are using these mitigation
funds to relocate houses in Alakanuk and elevate houses in Red
Devil and Sleetmute. Last year this program funding was reduced
by 50 percent.
The 2003 report by the United States General Accounting
Office titled, ``Alaska Native Villages'' is a tremendously
important study. Our agency assisted the GAO in this study and
supports the conclusions. Flooding and erosion affect a
significant number of Alaskan communities. We agree with the
GAO study indicating that the villages of Kivalina, Koyukuk,
Newtok and Shishmaref face increased danger from floods and
erosion. Some of these communities have sought assistance with
relocation, which is also a goal we support.
The problem is most acute for some of Alaska's smallest
communities. Again, the GAO report painted an accurate portrait
of these problems. The small populations, the limited tax bases
and the undeveloped nature of local governments are manifested
in the communities most at risk also being those with the
fewest local resources available to cope with the problems. We
also believe the risk of flooding and erosion in many
communities appears to be increasing and we readily share the
concerns expressed by residents of Alaska's rural communities.
In conclusion, our agency has vast experience in disaster
response and recovery. We will be there for each and all of
these communities when the next storm strikes. We will be there
for all the storms that follow. However, our legal mandate does
not give us the authority, or the funding, to move a community
out of the path of a storm.
Clearly, there needs to be legal authority and funding to
relocate communities that are at risk for catastrophic events.
I believe these hearings are providing a good forum to develop
the answers to these critical issues.
Thank you for holding the hearings and permitting me to
testify. I welcome questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David E. Liebersbach
Thank you, Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee for the
opportunity to testify in this hearing today. I appreciate the
leadership this Committee is providing by focusing attention on the
problems of flooding and erosion that threaten Alaska's communities.
As the Director of the State's emergency management organization,
there are three points I will make today. First, the problems of
erosion and flooding are significant dangers to many Alaskan
communities. Second, the solution to the problems created by flooding
and erosion lay beyond the existing capabilities of the communities and
the State. Third, failure to find a solution to the flooding and
erosion problems of our communities will place many Alaskan residents
at an increasing risk in future years.
My agency, the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, acting under the authority of the Governor of Alaska, will
assist in protecting life and property when local governments are
overwhelmed by natural disasters or acts of terrorism. Additionally we
assist the State, local governments and private institutions in
planning and preparing for disasters or terrorism events.
Our mission is defined by law in Alaska Statute, Title 26, Chapter
23, which states ``The Governor is responsible for meeting the dangers
presented by disasters to the State and its people.'' Disasters are
defined as the ``occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe
damage, injury, loss of life or property, or shortage of food, water,
or fuel from an incident . . .''
The law limits the response by the Division of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management to events which pose ``a widespread and severe
threat'' to human life or property. One home being washed away by a
flood is a tragedy. It is not, however, a State disaster because it is
neither ``wide spread'' nor ``severe.''
Similarly, the constantly changing courses of our rivers and
eroding coastlines are causing tragedies in local communities, but not
disasters. The village of Noatak is but one example where gradually,
house by house, half the village has been forced to relocate as the
river bank erodes. The residents have accomplished this, as is proper,
without any assistance from my agency.
Since the 1977 reorganization of this agency, the Division has been
involved in over 200 disaster events of varying size, dealing with
every type of hazard. In the last 20 years, we have responded to 97
flooding or erosion disaster events, which accounts for 51 percent of
our responses. We can only guess what the next 20 years will bring, but
we can improve our situation with good mitigation measures.
Elevating or relocating structures are examples of disaster
mitigation. However, outside of a federally declared disaster, the
State of Alaska has no program to fund disaster mitigation projects.
For a federally declared disaster, the State may expend up to 7.5
percent of the total disaster funding on approved Mitigation projects.
Currently, we are using these mitigation funds to relocate houses in
Alakanuk and elevate houses in Red Devil and Sleetmute. Last year, FEMA
reduced this program funding by 50 percent.
The 2003 report by the United States General Accounting Office
titled ``Alaska Native Villages'' is a tremendously important study. My
agency assisted the GAO in this study and supports the conclusions.
Flooding and erosion affect a significant number of Alaskan
communities. We agree with the GAO study, indicating that the villages
of Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok and Shishmaref face increased danger from
floods and erosion. Some of these communities have sought assistance
with relocation, which is also a goal we support.
The problem is most acute for some of Alaska's smallest
communities. Again, the GAO report painted an accurate portrait of
these problems. The small populations, the limited tax bases and the
undeveloped nature of local governments are manifested in the
communities most at risk also being those with the fewest local
resources available to cope with the problems. We also believe the risk
of flooding and erosion in many communities appears to be increasing
and we readily share the concerns expressed the residents of Alaska's
rural communities.
In conclusion, my agency has vast experience in disaster response
and recovery. We will be there for each and all of these communities
when the next storm strikes. We will be there for all the storms that
follow. Unfortunately, our legal mandate does not give us the
authority, or the funding, to move a community out of the path of the
storm.
Clearly, there needs to be legal authority and funding to relocate
communities that are at risk from catastrophic events. I believe these
hearings are providing a good forum to develop the answers to these
critical issues.
Thank you for holding the hearings and for permitting me to
testify.
ALASKA DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF FEDERAL & STATE DECLARED DISASTERS (MARCH
1984 TO PRESENT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost State/ On the GAO Total Disasters/
DISASTER DSTR # Category Fed Study Percentage and Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental and Economic
Disasters
Crown Point/May 1, 1986...... 86-53 E-5 $712,097.00 ...........
Valdez Oil Spill/March 29, 89-89 E-5 $361,679.00 ...........
1989.
Moose/March 28, 1990......... 90-108 E-5 $196,522.00 ........... 9 Disasters
Norton Sound Herring Fish/ 93-159 E-5 $0.00 ........... 5 percent of total
July 13, 1992.
Kuskokwim Chum/July 19, 1993. 94-163 E-5 $0.00 ...........
Bristol Bay Fish/July 18, 98-184 E-5 $2,007,846.00 ...........
1997.
WAFD/July 30, 1998/FEDA...... 99-189 E-5 $18,000,000.00 ...........
WAFD/July 30, 1998/ELE....... 99-189 E-5 $6,106,751.35 ...........
Operation Renew Hope/July 19, 1-194 E-5 $747,122.10 ...........
2000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............. ........... ............ $28,132,017.45
==================================================================================
Other Infrastructure
Thorne Bay (Bridge)/February 86-52 E-4 $11,778.00 ...........
3, 1986.
Klehini River Bridge/November 88-68 E-4 $92,482.00 ........... 6 Disasters
9, 1987.
Whittier/August 8, 1989...... 90-98 E-4 $634,103.00 ........... 3 percent of total
Broadcasting/February 22, 90-106 E-4 $130,000.00 ...........
1990.
Lowell Creek Tunnell/ 91-124 E-4 $369,786.00 ...........
September 27, 1990.
Kotzebue Radio Tower/August 2-197 E-4 $41,226.77 ...........
13, 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............. ........... ............ $1,279,375.77
==================================================================================
Fuel Shortages
Gambell/May 17, 1985......... 85-35 E-3 $33,673.00 ...........
Togiak/October 1987.......... 88-67 E-3 $35,000.00 ........... 6 Disasters
Kongiganak/March 2, 1990..... 90-107 E-3 $20,000.00 ........... 3 percent of total
Manakotak/April 5, 1990...... 90-109 E-3 $15,000.00 ...........
Karluk/February 22, 1991..... 91-129 E-3 $22,000.00 ...........
Aniak Loan/August 7, 1991.... 92-147 E-3 $5,082.00 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............. ........... ............ $130,755.00
==================================================================================
Public Services
Search and Rescue/September 90-102 E-2 $100,000.00 ........... 3 Disasters
13, 1989.
Snow and Ice Removal/1990.... 90-112 E-2 $2,000,000.00 ........... 2 percent of total
Shaker IV/1993............... 94-166 E-2 $357,778.00 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............. ........... ............ $2,457,778.00
==================================================================================
Utilities (Not caused by
Natural Disaster Events)
Cold Bay/May 5, 1984......... 84-27 E-1 $1,345.00 ...........
Cold Bay/July 31, 1984....... 85-30 E-1 $740,000.00 ...........
Metlakatla/December 10, 1985. 86-48 E-1 $90,547.00 ...........
Venetie/March 3, 1986........ 86-51 E-1 $54,615.00 ...........
Aniak (Sewer)/October 27, 87-57 E-1 $52,500.00 ...........
1986.
Angoon/November 6, 1987...... 88-66 E-1 $29,514.00 ...........
Beaver/March 8, 1988......... 88-71 E-1 $22,990.00 ...........
Chenega Bay/March 25, 1988... 88-73 E-1 $36,423.00 ...........
Eagle/July 22, 1988.......... 89-79 E-1 $8,242.00 ...........
Marshall/February 25, 1991... 91-130 E-1 $15,741.00 ...........
Angoon/May 3, 1991........... 91-131 E-1 $91,468.00 ........... 14 Disasters
Little Diomede/July 25, 1991. 92-146 E-1 $67,684.00 ........... 7 percent of total
Seward Sewage/November 20, 92-152 E-1 $754,541.00 ...........
1991.
Kake Water Incident/July 31, 1-195 E-1 $409,699.25 ...........
2000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............. ........... ............ $2,375,309.25
==================================================================================
Earthquakes, Volcanoes,
Landslides and Avalanches
Mt. Redoubt/December 20, 1989 90-103 D $269,886.00 ........... 6 Disasters
KPB Mt. Redoubt/January 11, 90-104 D $149,403.00 ........... 3 percent of total
1990.
Earthquake Mitigation/ 92-151 D $225,748.00 ...........
November 7, 1991.
Mt. Spurr/September 21, 1992. 93-161 D $287,846.00 ...........
Central Gulf Coast Storm/ 0-191 D $17,320,725.00 ...........
February 4, 2000 \1\.
Denali Earthquake/November 6, 2-203 D $19,934,500.00 ...........
2002 \1\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............. ........... ............ $234,937,361.72
==================================================================================
Fire: Wild Land and
Structural
Russian Mission/August 9, 85-31 C $89,325.00 ...........
1984.
Gambell/August 31, 1985...... 86-44 C $201,693.00 ...........
Manakotak/November 22, 1985.. 86-46 C $69,449.00 ...........
Venetie/January 9, 1987...... 87-58 C $86,000.00 ...........
Delta Junction/May 28, 1987.. 87-61 C $22,257.00 ...........
Wainwright Fire/October 6, 88-65 C $2,186,931.00 ...........
1987.
Barrow School Fire/February 88-69 C $2,410,159.00 ...........
16, 1988.
Chefornak/March 23, 1988..... 88-72 C $272,735.00 ...........
Pitka's Point/March 29, 1988. 88-74 C $97,761.00 ...........
Nondalton/April 5, 1988...... 88-75 C $776,897.00 ...........
Klawock/October 17, 1988..... 89-81 C $48,157.00 ...........
Yukon Flats/November 10, 1988 89-82 C $84,757.00 ...........
Tatitlek/January 31, 1990.... 90-105 C $92,242.00 ...........
Stebbins/April 9, 1990....... 90-110 C $1,000,000.00 ...........
Fire Suppresion/May 30, 1990. 90-115 C $1,000,000.00 ...........
Teklanika Fire/May 31, 1990.. 90-116 C $1,000,000.00 ...........
Statewide Fires/July 4, 1990. 91-118 C $1,995,914.00 ...........
Eagle/December 28, 1990...... 91-126 C $33,174.00 ...........
DNR/July 11, 1991............ 92-143 C N/A ...........
Whitestone/July 25, 1991..... 92-145 C $168,700.00 ...........
Diomede Fire/September 20, 92-148 C $974,172.00 ...........
1991.
DNR Fire Disaster/July 7, 93-158 C N/A ...........
1992 \2\.
Tenakee Springs Fire/July 19, 94-164 C $169,369.00 ...........
1993.
Department of Natural Res/ 94-165 C $1,000,000.00 ...........
August 3, 1993.
DNR Statewide Fire/June 22, 95-179 C N/A ...........
1995 \2\.
Miller's Reach Fire/June 2, 96-181 C $7,540,509.00 ...........
1996 \1\.
DNR Fire Suppression/July 14, 96-183 C N/A ........... 31 Disasters
1997 \2\.
DNR Fire Suppression/June 5, 98-187 C N/A ........... 16 percent of total
1998 \2\.
DNR Fire Suppression/May 24, 0-192 C N/A ...........
2000 \2\.
DNR Fire Suppression/June 23, 0-193 C N/A ...........
2000 \2\.
Sleetmute Fire/December 20, 2-199 C $148,646.57 ...........
2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............. ........... ............ $21,468,847.57
==================================================================================
Extreme Freezing Temps and
High Winds
Unalakleet/March 5, 1984..... 84-23 B $726,865.00 ...........
Mountain Village/March 8, 84-24 B $986,427.00 ...........
1984.
Elim/March 9, 1984........... 84-25 B $384,588.00 ...........
Kotzebue/April 30, 1984...... 84-26 B $673,101.00 ...........
Savoonga/February 26, 1985... 85-34 B $255,954.00 ...........
Thorne Bay/December 5, 1985.. 86-47 B $258,512.00 ...........
Pelican/March 19, 1986....... 86-52 B $18,024.00 ...........
Kotzebue/February 5, 1987.... 87-59 B $1,231,610.00 ...........
Omega Block(Cold Wthr)/ 89-83 B $1,319,656.00 ...........
January 28, 1989.
Northwest Arctic Borough/ 89-84 B $4,974,908.00 ...........
February 1, 1989.
St. George/February 9, 1989.. 89-85 B $229,853.00 ...........
Sand Point/February 27, 1989. 89-86 B $23,062.00 ...........
Ahkiok/March 2, 1989......... 89-87 B $45,937.00 ...........
Galena/April 20, 1989........ 89-90 B $175,124.00 ........... 18 Disasters
Hazard Mitigation C.W./1990.. 91-119 B $556,754.00 ........... 9 percent of total
Togiak/February 8, 1991...... 91-127 B $51,384.00 ...........
Larsen Bay/February 14, 1991. 91-128 B $20,000.00 ...........
South-central Windstorm/March 3-204 B $5,577,248.00 ...........
2003 \1\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............. ........... ............ $17,509,007.00
==================================================================================
Flood and Erosion Type Events
for the last 20 years
Southeast Alaska/November 26, 85-32 A/B $958,519.00 ...........
1984.
Unalaska/December 13, 1985... 86-49 A/B $181,937.00 ...........
North Slope Borough/March 8, 89-88 A/B $113,364.00 ( \3\ )
1989.
Alakanuk/June 13,1984........ 84-28 A $277,544.00 ( \3\ )
Emmonak/June 15, 1984........ 84-29 A $22,884.00 ( \3\ )
Haines/January 25, 1985...... 85-33 A $1,581,506.00 ...........
Buckland/May 30, 1985........ 85-36 A $83,585.00 ( \3\ )
Kobuk/May 30, 1985........... 85-37 A $17,979.00 ( \3\ )
Anvik/June 5, 1985........... 85-38 A $17,878.00 ( \3\ )
Emmonak/June 11, 1985........ 85-39 A $72,832.00 ( \3\ )
Pilot Station/June 18, 1985.. 85-40 A $34,736.00 ( \3\ )
Upper Kuskokwim River/June 85-41 A $56,826.00 ( \3\ )
18, 1985.
Pitka's Point/July 9, 1985... 86-42 A $12,740.00 ( \3\ )
Bethel/July 10, 1985......... 86-43 A $475,507.00 ( \3\ )
Cordova/October 31, 1985..... 86-45 A $16,462.00 ...........
Napakiak/May 15, 1986........ 86-54 A $15,000.00 ( \3\ )
Artic (North Slope) Sea Storm/ 87-55 A $3,791,026.00 ( \3\ )
September 25, 1986.
Southcentral AK Flood/October 87-56 A $8,642,440.00 ...........
12, 1986.
Sleetmute/Red Devil/May 28, 87-60 A $51,602.00 ( \3\ )
1987.
Aniak/May 29, 1987........... 87-62 A $993,861.00 ( \3\ )
Buckland/June 16, 1987....... 87-63 A $203,548.00 ( \3\ )
DOT--July 24, 1987 \4\....... 88-64 A N/A ...........
Haines Flooding/February 29, 88-70 A $78,590.00 ...........
1988.
Crooked Creek/May 12, 1988... 88-76 A $133,230.00 ( \3\ )
Napakiak/Napaskiak/May 24, 88-77 A $125,292.00 ( \3\ )
1988.
Kaltag/May 26, 1988.......... 89-78 A $28,883.00 ( \3\ )
Shishmaref/August 5, 1988.... 89-80 A $318,072.00 ( \3\ )
Glennallen/May 6, 1989....... 89-91 A $15,000.00
Circle/May 6, 1989........... 89-92 A $196,657.00 ( \3\ )
Ft. Yukon/May 6, 1989........ 89-93 A $194,812.00 ( \3\ )
89 Spring Floods/June 10, 89-94 A $4,739,881.00 ( \3\ )
1989.
Klawock/June 19, 1989........ 90-95 A $9,927.00 ...........
Fairbanks North Star Boro/ 90-96 A $65,640.00 ...........
August 4, 1989.
Mat-Su Borough/August 4, 1989 90-97 A $358,772.00 ...........
Municipality of Anchorage/ 90-99 A $2,261,615.00 ...........
August 30, 1989.
Seward/Kenai Peninsula/August 90-100 A $529,552.00 ...........
30, 1989.
DOT--September 13, 1989 \4\.. 90-101 A N/A ...........
Hazard Mit. 89 Spring Flood/ 90-111 A $619,828.00 ...........
April 14, 1990.
McGrath/May 16, 1990......... 90-113 A $39,409.00 ( \3\ )
Kobuk/May 17, 1990........... 90-114 A $6,153.00 ( \3\ )
Bethel/July 2, 1990.......... 90-117 A $600,176.00 ( \3\ )
Lower Kuskokwim/September 4, 91-120 A $835,297.00 ( \3\ )
1990.
Kotzebue/September 4, 1990... 91-121 A $328,845.00 ( \3\ )
Nome/September 10, 1990...... 91-122 A $105,000.00 ...........
Teller/September 10, 1990.... 91-123 A $173,723.00 ( \3\ )
Diomede/November 21, 1990.... 91-125 A $622,594.00 ( \3\ )
Fairbanks North Star Boro/May 91-132 A $1,664,378.00 ( \3\ )
3-23, 1991.
Aniak/May 1991............... 91-133 A $550,089.00 ( \3\ )
McGrath/May 1991............. 91-134 A $608,391.00 ( \3\ )
Red Devil/May 1991........... 91-135 A $239,953.00 ( \3\ )
Anvik/May 1991............... 91-136 A $181,700.00 ( \3\ )
Grayling/May 1991............ 91-137 A $78,630.00 ( \3\ )
Emmonak/May 1991............. 91-138 A $398,246.00 ( \3\ )
Holy Cross/May 1991.......... 91-139 A $20,265.00 ( \3\ )
Alakanuk/May 1991............ 91-140 A $210,506.00 ( \3\ )
Shageluk/May 1991............ 91-141 A $57,867.00 ( \3\ )
Galena/May 1991.............. 92-142 A $67,061.00 ( \3\ )
Mat-Su Borough/July 18, 1991. 92-144 A $515,900.00 ...........
New Koliganek/October 14, 92-149 A $67,526.00 ( \3\ )
1991.
Kodiak/November 2, 1991...... 92-150 A $1,564,957.00 ( \3\ )
Eagle Village Flood/May 19, 92-153 A $183,729.00 ( \3\ )
1992.
Eagle City Flood/May 19, 1992 92-154 A $61,147.00 ( \3\ )
Galena Ice Jam Flood/May 26- 92-155 A $442,615.00 ( \3\ )
29, 1992.
Flood Response/June 9, 1992.. 92-156 A $22,059.00 ...........
Yukon River Flood/June 17, 92-157 A $1,167,796.22 ( \3\ )
1992.
DOT--August 14,1992 \4\...... 93-160 A N/A ...........
DOT--October 5, 1992 \4\..... 93-162 A N/A ( \3\ )
DOT--October 29, 1993 \4\.... 94-167 A N/A ...........
Fort Yukon Haz Mit/1993...... 94-168 A $356,765.00 ...........
McGrath Road Disaster/May 23, 94-169 A $170,999.00 ...........
1993.
Galena Flood/May 10, 1994.... 94-170 A $614,005.00 ( \3\ )
Cummins Road/July 13, 1994... 95-171 A $38,810.00 ...........
Mat-Su Borough Loan/July 1, 95-172 A $500,000.00 ...........
1994.
1994 Falls Floods/August 24, 95-173 A $60,883,422.00 ( \3\ )
1994.
1994 Koyukuk Flood Hmit/ 95-173 A $11,402,495.00 ( \3\ )
August 24, 1994.
1994 Koyukuk Flood TH/August 95-173 A $335,616.00 ( \3\ )
24, 1994.
Metlakatla/November 10, 1994. 95-174 A $31,863.00 ( \3\ )
Skagway/November 16, 1994.... 95-175 A $112,786.00 ...........
Yukon-Delta Kuskokwim/June 5, 95-176 A $207,852.00 ( \3\ )
1995.
Aniak/June 5, 1995........... 95-177 A $210,213.95 ...........
Bethel/June 5, 1995.......... 95-178 A $128,861.00 ( \3\ )
1995 Southcentral Flood/ 96-180 A $10,526,962.15 ...........
September 21, 1995.
96 Southeast Storm/September 96-182 A $528,180.80 ...........
25, 1996.
Tanana/Copper River Flood/ 97-185 A $946,144.32 ( \3\ )
1997.
Shishmaref/October 6, 1997... 98-186 A $1,462,788.11 ( \3\ )
Endicott Mtn Flooding/June 98-188 A $667,905.92 ( \3\ )
18, 1998.
Southeastern Storm/October 99-190 A $1,119,927.94 ( \3\ )
27, 1998.
Middle Yukon flood/May 31, 1-196 A $600,000.00 ( \3\ ) ......................
2001 \1\.
Shismareff Erosion/October 2-198 A $87,858.74 ( \3\ )
27, 2001.
Interior Flood/May 30, 2002 2-200 A $5,809,300.00 ( \3\ )
\1\.
Northwest Fall Sea Storm/ 3-201 A $851,000.00 ( \3\ )
October 23, 2002 \1\.
Kenai Peninsula Flooding/ 3-202 A $19,758,068.00 ........... 97 Declared Disasters
November 2002 \1\.
Salcha Flood/2003 \1\........ 3-205 A $600,000.00 ........... 51 percent of total
July Riverine Flood/July 2003 4-206 A $500,000.00 ...........
\1\.
2003 Fall Flood \1\.......... 4-207 A $683,508.00 ...........
Kassan Landslide/2003 \1\.... 4-208 A $524,528.00 ...........
2003 Fall Sea Storm \1\...... 4-209 A $695,000.00 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost............. ........... ............ $158,466,399.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:
A = Flood, Erosion, and Landslides caused by heavy rains. 97 Events. 51 percent.
B = Extreme Freezing Cold Temps and High Winds. 18 Events. 9 percent.
C = Fire: Wild Land and Structural. 31 Events. 16 percent.
D = Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Landslides and Avalanches. 6 Events. 3 percent.
E = Other.
E-1: Utilities (Not caused by Natural Disaster Events). 14 Events. 7 percent.
E-2: Public Services. 3 Events. 2 percent.
E-3: Fuel Shortages. 6 Events. 3 percent.
E-4: Other Infrastructure. 6 Events. 3 percent.
E-5: Environmental and Economic. 9 Events. 5 percent.
20 Year Disaster Total: 190.
Total Cost All Events: $466,756,850.91.
\1\ Disaster listed are Authorized Costs for the disaster based on Damage Estimates authorized in the Disaster
Declaration, all others are actual costs.
\2\ DNR Fire Suppression Disasters are tracked and reported on by DNR.
\3\ On the GAO study.
\4\ DOT Federal Highway Funding Disasters are tracked and reported on by DOT.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. First, Mr. Mundy,
you mentioned NAHASDA. What can a village use your funding for
in connection with flooding and erosion issues?
Mr. Mundy. Mr. Chairman, NAHASDA provides a lot of
flexibility to tribes to determine how to use their grants.
Primarily, the grant is for housing and housing-related
activities, affordable housing-related activities. Shishmaref
as well as Kivalina have used their NAHASDA grants in the means
of moving houses, I believe it was from the 2000 storm that
came on fairly suddenly and their TDHE went in and moved about
four houses, I believe it was, and prevented them from
literally falling into the ocean.
Chairman Stevens. Do you have authority for prevention or
just to react to disasters?
Mr. Mundy. Again, if the tribe incorporates that into their
housing plan. It's how you write things into your housing plan,
which is an annual requirement under NAHASDA. You can, and in
Kivalina's case, they annually put into their plan a portion of
their monies being spent, actively being spent on planning for
their move, their relocation. The tribe, if they adequately put
verbiage in it, they can just about do anything, Senator. There
does not need to be a declaration. They could react relatively
fast. Again, the constraint becomes the plan. They've got that
plan and they can amend that plan and have amended the plan in
some cases to take action.
I believe the Shishmaref plan was amended to allow an
activity; the tribe submitted their amendment to HUD by fax. I
returned that very quickly and it was an approved activity for
which funding could flow on. So, again, it is very flexible,
sir.
Chairman Stevens. You say that you have programs that can
leverage village funds? What do you mean by that?
Mr. Mundy. Under the title VI program, sir, Congress
approved a guaranteed program that allows a tribe to come in
and take a portion or all of their grant funds and seek a loan
from a commercial lender and then use those funds to do
whatever activity they're trying to do, be it build
infrastructure or whatever. What they're doing, they're
pledging the repayment of that loan with their future grant
funds.
Chairman Stevens. Does each tribe in Alaska have funds
allocated under NAHASDA?
Mr. Mundy. Yes, sir. Each tribe has an amount of funds that
is allocated under a formula. Now, some of those tribes may
determine if they want to go under an umbrella organization
such as the regional housing authorities. They assign those
funds to the regional housing authorities. Then the regional
housing authorities in concert with that tribe make the
decisions on how to expend funding.
Chairman Stevens. How much funding is available for that in
Alaska?
Mr. Mundy. Approximately $100 million for all of the
villages.
Chairman Stevens. That's annually?
Mr. Mundy. Annually, sir.
Chairman Stevens. And your agency is prepared to make money
available on the basis of leveraging--borrowing the funds for
the future?
Mr. Mundy. That's the way that Congress has structured it,
sir.
Chairman Stevens. Yes, but how far in the future?
Mr. Mundy. Again, they're allowed to leverage 5 years of
funding. So if the tribe gets their allocation of $100,000,
they can leverage that to $500,000. As long as they can
demonstrate how that can be repaid to the lender, the lender is
willing to deal with them. We have done several title VI's
within Alaska.
Chairman Stevens. Can they use that money for the local
share of the Corps of Engineers' project?
Mr. Mundy. That's a good question, sir. I will have to look
into that.
Chairman Stevens. Okay. What other sources of HUD funding
are available besides that village entitlement?
Mr. Mundy. There's--probably one of the more active
programs that has historically been used in emergencies,
flooding and erosion emergencies, has been the Indian Community
Housing Development Block Grant Program. Shishmaref took
advantage of that in their 1997 event and were awarded what was
known as an imminent threat. Under the IHBG a portion of the
overall grant is set aside for eminent threat nationally. Then
as threats come up, those are then funded out of this set-
aside, if you will, from the congressional appropriation.
Chairman Stevens. Those are for individual houses?
Mr. Mundy. Typically in--well, in Alakanuk and in Alatna,
Alakanuk moved eight houses with ICDBG funds and Alatna moved
two houses with ICDBG funds. The problem with that, the eminent
threat portion--again, it's a historic program. It's been done
for probably the past 20 years. As recently as about 1\1/2\
weeks ago, the department was prepared to set aside those funds
again and within our budgeting process we submitted our
department's operating plan for 2004 to the House
Appropriations folks for their concurrence. And, unfortunately,
that set-aside of approximately $4 million was not approved. So
in 2004 we have no set-aside.
Chairman Stevens. That was a national figure of $4 million?
Mr. Mundy. Yes, sir.
Chairman Stevens. All right. Are you working now with any
of these nine communities in terms of their planning process?
Mr. Mundy. Sir, we've been involved with Kivalina, and
generally we don't jump in; we wait to be asked. The community
really has to be willing to take the lead in this. We're not
the leaders. We're just one of many partners in this co-effort.
We've had active roles in Shishmaref, Kivalina, Newtok, with
staff participating on relocation committees in each of the
villages.
Chairman Stevens. Edgar, is your agency the lead agency or
is Mr. Mundy's the lead agency?
Mr. Blatchford. Senator and Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, the department is the lead State agency in dealing
with erosion and flood control. We have the Division of
Community Advocacy within the department. It's the coordinating
office for the national insurance program. The constitution in
the State of Alaska mandates that there shall be a State agency
that advises and assists communities in the unorganized
borough.
So with that responsibility upon the department, we work
closely with the local municipalities, like Shishmaref and
Kivalina. In Shishmaref's case what they have done, Mr.
Chairman, is that they have--in their flood and erosion
ordinance they have set management standards and they require
such things as a foundation system that allows for the
relocation of structures and that the site be certified by a
professional engineer to be safe from erosion for the useful
life of the structure or 15 years.
Now, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the Department
is also contracting out for relocation maps for Newtok and
Shishmaref.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. I think Mr. Mundy answered most of my
questions as far as the money is concerned and how he operates.
It just sounds like that one figure of $4 million nationwide is
a pretty low figure. That can be used up awfully fast.
Mr. Mundy. Yes, sir, it could.
Senator Burns. How about--are we hearing from anybody at
SBA, Mr. Chairman, in this thing? Are they involved in these
hearings?
Chairman Stevens. They're not involved in these hearings,
no.
Senator Burns. Okay. I think he answered most of my
questions. As far as funding is concerned, we may be a little
bit low in some areas. But he answered most of my questions.
Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. In the village area the small businesses
have a limited role, but we will deal with them in Washington
to the extent we have to after this hearing.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, this could probably be
addressed by either you, Mr. Mundy, or Commissioner Blatchford.
The 184 other communities out there that experience some level
of flooding or erosion that have been identified in this GAO
report--we have been kind of focused on the nine communities--
but in the programs that you have available through HUD, when a
community is asking for assistance or wants to locate some
homes and they are in these villages that are not necessarily
under eminent threat, but we know we have erosion difficulties,
we know we have flooding problems, what guidance, if any, is
given within these communities?
Commissioner Blatchford, you mentioned, and I think your
point is right on, that we need to identify the risks in the
areas to avoid problems of the past. In other words, we don't
want to be--we don't want to be putting ourselves in the way of
problems in the future. So what role, if any, do you have as
you provide for these programs to make sure that we are
locating in an area that's going to be relatively safe?
Mr. Blatchford. Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski, the
department's role is that of a community advocate. We don't go
into a community unless we have been invited into the
community. We work as closely as we can with the local
community through our regional offices. We look to the future,
Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski, and we ask this question
constantly: Are these communities going to be able to sustain
the kind of growth that we see coming down the road, that the
Alaska Native communities are growing, the Alaska Native
population is growing. So we look for economically viable
activities.
We recognize that subsistence is an economic activity, in
our definition, and the need to preserve the economics or the
subsistence lifestyle and the culture that goes with
subsistence activities. But we always look to the future, what
these communities will look like in 10 to 15 years, and that is
our primary goal.
So through our regional offices we work closely with the
communities when we are invited in. We do some research for
them. We write ordinances or assist in writing ordinances. We
work with the Federal Government--in various agencies of the
Federal Government and in almost all cases we work with the
other departments in the State government.
Just to summarize, Senator Murkowski, there is a subcabinet
group within the cabinet of the Governor and its
responsibility--one of its responsibilities is to develop
economic opportunity and policies for rural Alaska, a rural
strategy. I hope I've answered your question.
Senator Murkowski. Well, you kind of addressed the big
picture. I guess I'm wondering whether there is presented
within these respective villages a map, as best we can
identify. We don't know which way the river is going to go. We
don't know the level of wave activity. There is so much we just
simply cannot anticipate with Mother Nature. But I guess I
would want some kind of assurance that we are aware that we're
dealing with Mother Nature at her best or her worse and are
building in areas that are going to be less efforts than
others. I don't know whether there's a process that is out
there either through your department or whether it's something
that the agencies actually take a look at.
Mr. Mundy. If I might, Senator Murkowski and Mr. Chair.
HUD--when tribes build new houses, they must conform to our
environmental review process. And within that we consider
erosion, we consider floodplain, we consider those natural
elements. And I believe that there is some level of assurance
there that keeps us out of, if you will, harm's way for new
construction. For the existing properties it becomes a little
bit more difficult to the extent that they're there and we have
to deal with them as it happens.
I'm in a unique position because for 5 years before I came
to work with HUD, I ran the Bering Straits Regional Housing
Authority out in Unalaska, and Shishmaref was one of the
villages that we moved houses in. I'm pleased to report that
while I was there that HUD was very willing to work with the
housing authority and the tribe to make sure that concerns were
met and issues were dealt with and that we clearly could act in
a very timely way to move houses out of harm's way and deal
with some of the bureaucracy at a later date.
So I think that for a large degree for NAHASDA funds
there's a definite level of flexibility. When you get into some
of the other HUD funds, it gets a little bit more rigid.
There's more regulations in place, and they are competitive
grants except for the imminent threat grant. So, as an agency,
we fall back on the environmental heavily. I think that would
offer some assurance to Congress that it's being addressed.
Senator Murkowski. One more question, and this follows on
your comments, Dave, about the responses over the past 20
years, that your division has dealt with 97 flooding or erosion
disaster events, which accounts for 51 percent of the
responses. And recognizing that that's what we deal with, we
know that this occupies a great deal of the time, energy and
resources within the division, within the department, and yet
we have no dedicated funds--excuse me--no dedicated program
within the State of Alaska to deal with flood or erosion
issues.
And, Commissioner, you mentioned this in your testimony as
well. We know that this is an endemic issue to the State. It's
something that we have been dealing with in my time in the
legislature. I see Representative Joule in the audience here.
Every year that I was there the issue of Shishmaref was brought
up and he was insistent we must do what we can to help. That
was one village at that specific time.
But it just seems to me that we've got a situation that
continues year after year, and if it's not Shishmaref, it's
Newtok or Kivalina or we can go down the list. I guess the
question would be to you, Commissioner: Why have we not had a
more specific focus at the State level on this issue of erosion
to our coastal communities and to our river communities? Is it
simply an issue of funding or does it go beyond that?
Mr. Blatchford. Mr. Chairman, to Senator Murkowski, I think
it's an issue of our ability to focus. I have a particular
fondness for Shishmaref since my grandmother was from the
Shishmaref area. Under another administration, under Governor
Hickle, I visited Shishmaref and we looked at that problem back
in the early 1990s. The impetus right now, the focus should be
on avoiding the problems so that if--I was going to say if I
come back under another administration, but I don't see that
happening--that we won't have this problem again.
We work closely with the communities and we take the lead
from the people in the community, and we ask for their thoughts
and their suggestions and at times, Senator Murkowski, the
local leadership has a better understanding of the elements of
nature than we do. And so we're careful that we listen to their
advice and incorporate their advice as we develop policy.
I think that as we go in, too, Senator and members of the
committee, we also look at the sustainability to the community,
whether there would be other economic activities in the
surrounding area if we were to, say, relocate or encourage the
relocation of that village. Can we have a self-sustaining
economy or more private sector jobs that would be further away?
We look at mining activities, we look at natural resource
development, and see how that complements and works with the
subsistence economic base of the community.
So, in essence, Senator Murkowski, what we do is avoid the
problem, or try to avoid the problem so that we don't see this
happening again.
Senator Murkowski. Just very briefly, then. In your opinion
what can the State do within the department structure to
provide more focus to this issue that we know we will continue
to deal with?
Mr. Blatchford. Senator Stevens, Senator Murkowski and
members of the committee, what we can do is work closely or
closer with the Denali Commission and the other Federal
agencies and fully recognize that the department is the lead
agency.
There's only one department in the State government that
has that constitutional responsibility to deal with the
unorganized borough, to be their advocate, so we take that
responsibility very seriously. We would urge the Federal
Government to also recognize the unique responsibility of the
department to the unorganized borough.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Blatchford.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Sununu.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Blatchford, in your last series of
responses you talked about the desirability of strengthening
local economies and enabling them to have more sustainable
industry and activity, and in your written testimony you also
mentioned the Governor's access to the future initiative and
that you would like to see stronger ties with that initiative
in order to help develop and identify those sustainable
economies.
Could you talk a little bit more about that initiative and
also how those efforts would be integrated with Federal
programs?
Mr. Blatchford. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, to the Senator,
access to the future is the Governor's recognition that the
best locally driven economy is one based on self-determination
and locally driven activities. We look at the private sector as
complementing traditional activities, traditional economic
activities such as subsistence, fishing, gathering, hunting.
And some private sector opportunities are there.
We locate an area and if the community or group of
communities wishes to be involved in the State planning effort,
we work closely. For example, out in southwest Alaska three
communities have asked for our assistance in recognizing the
opportunity that comes with the Bering Sea Fishery. We look at
working closely with the Denali Commission and the Federal
agencies. The Denali Commission has done a wonderful job in
creation of some of these opportunities.
In the Nightmute area you have a subregional airport and
then you have a subregional health clinic. I believe the clinic
has been completed. But also we look at the Federal
Government's activities, tie it with the traditional
activities, and tie it with the private sector activities that
might be developed, like I just said, like in the Bering Sea.
Senator Sununu. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Murkowski had to leave to escort
the Secretary of Transportation to another meeting. So she will
be with us tomorrow morning.
I would like to go back to you, Mr. Liebersbach. How do you
relate to Edgar Blatchford's commission? If you handle
disasters and he handles planning; sounds like he's handling
some planning for disasters. How do you coordinate?
Mr. Liebersbach. Mr. Chairman, we work with the Department
of Community and Economic Development in identifying mitigation
measures, particularly when it relates to floodplains, but also
in other areas where these communities can be affected in
things that we recommend to the communities and to the
department, Mr. Blatchford's department, on types of things to
be considered when they're looking at community development of
any kind or relocations, and it's not always limited just to
flooding.
We have issues obviously in Alaska with wildfire, which
right at this very moment as we sit here, we have a rural
community that's imminently threatened by a wildfire and people
are being evacuated from it. We have avalanches. We work with
them in that. But the actual work to move a community, if you
will, or determine where a community ought to move to falls
within the purview of the Department of Community and Economic
Development and our input provides where to avoid risks, if you
will, if they're moving into new areas.
Beyond that, of course, we work directly with them when a
disaster is imminent and/or occurring because they are going to
be there involved with us in the recovery from that disaster as
we try to put back in place health and safety and rebuilding
the community, if necessary, in an economic sustainable
fashion.
Chairman Stevens. Well, the report we have indicates that
your agency was not involved in the Noatak planning and
relocation. Why was that?
Mr. Liebersbach. Noatak continues to relocate. It is not
relocated at this time. But the Noatak relocation, again, as I
said, has never been declared, if you will, a disaster. It's a
house-by-house relocation of it. In that situation all we would
be involved with in terms of engaging in it would be to
identify the areas they should move back to, not necessarily
from a funding standpoint, as our funding is related to a
declared disaster event.
Now, the one time we did engage there did not include the
moving of houses, but it was in the 1994 fall floods that
occurred throughout northern Alaska, including Noatak, and
there was some involvement in moving part of the graveyard that
we were engaged in. It had to be done under an emergency
declaration scenario.
The moving of the houses in Noatak have been through a
multiple of funding sources of agencies that work in the Alaska
villages; the Electrical Cooperative, the Corps of Engineers,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, Natural
Resource Conservation Service and several others, including the
Alaska Department of Transportation and public facilities have
been involved in the gradual movement of that community and
structures in that community, but it's been on a, once again,
one-by-one, if you will, basis. It's not been a widespread
declared disaster in Noatak as they move.
We have other communities similar to that where this has
gone on. Galena is an example where they have had multiple
floodings and they have gradually moved to a new site. We have
Koyukuk, which is getting flooded and is being looked at for a
possible relocating. Kobuk, a similar type of thing where they
have to move back from the river, partly due to disaster
response, but as they get later erosion going on on the Kobuk
River, they're having to move back from that. They're doing it
through the use of HUD monies and these other agencies, the
Corps of Engineers help, possibly Alaska DOT, where it may
impact roads and/or airports.
Senator Burns. Is that an ongoing situation; in other
words, do they do that as necessary, a case-by-case basis?
Mr. Liebersbach. Senator Burns, through the Chair, yes,
that's correct. They don't have an event that's occurring. It's
just erosion constantly going on and they're having to move
back and it is a continuing situation for them.
Even Shishmaref is continuing. Although they have some
significant storm events that may periodically ratchet that
community up to a disaster level where we have to go in and
quickly move some houses, but the erosion is constantly out
there and is not event-driven; it's just ongoing. Eventually,
we believe, although I'm not a scientific expert, but we feel
it's going away.
Chairman Stevens. In reviewing past relocation efforts I
went back through some history. I don't want to mention the
village where it occurred. But there was one village that
refused to move in the past to the desired location because the
relocation plan did not cover moving the cemetery. Who was
involved in that in terms of cemetery relocation? Mr. Mundy,
would your relocation plan include cemeteries as well as
houses?
Mr. Mundy. That's a good question. My gut feeling is
probably no.
Chairman Stevens. How about you, Edgar?
Mr. Blatchford. Senator Stevens and members of the
committee, I think it would include moving cemeteries. I think
if we move an entire community, since the Department's role is
that of community advocate, it would take in everything that
the community is about.
Chairman Stevens. General, I see you're still here. Do your
plans include moving cemeteries?
General Davis. It would just be public facilities.
Chairman Stevens. Because of that, I did talk to a person
involved in handling that move in question, and he told me it
became quite a considerable impediment to move at all. As you
reviewed these--where's my friend from GAO? Are you still here?
I don't think they're here. We'll have to ask them that
question. I don't really remember a discussion of the
cemeteries per se in these reports and the current controversy
over these coastal villages. Have any of you dealt with that
question yet?
Mr. Liebersbach. Senator Stevens, we deal with that
question during an event-driven situation. We've had to not
necessarily relocate, but reinter and be involved in the
reinterment of caskets, remains, if you will, where because of
the way these cemeteries are along the river areas and when we
get a flood, they will actually literally be floated up out of
the ground and they have to be reinterred.
This happened in Alaktak during the 1994 floods. In Noatak
actually it was washing away, caskets were sticking out of the
ground and they were removed. Here recently due to fall storms
over in--and I don't recall the name--within the last year we
were involved with a multi-agency involving several Federal
agencies where a mass grave site from the early 20th century
epidemics that occurred out there, mass graves and people were
being washed out of those. We were involved in getting medical
examiners out there to be sure there was no continued threat
from the epidemic a century later here and then worked at
getting those folks--the ones that were recovered--reinterred.
But the actual relocation pre-disaster, if you will, has not
been anything that we have been involved in addressing.
Chairman Stevens. I think that's one of the issues we
better address and make sure we cover it. Because if we start
helping locate new sites, my information is that, as I said,
that was a stumbling block when the plan did not include moving
the cemetery. The village people are very much connected to
their past, and I think we better be sure that the plans
include moving all of the coastal aspects of the village. I
hope everyone puts their mind on that. I don't know whether
we'll have to mention it specifically in Federal legislation or
not. But I think, Edgar, you better look into that for us.
Mr. Blatchford. We will, Senator.
Chairman Stevens. Any other questions of this panel?
We're going to take another 10-minute break. We'll come
back to the third panel.
We have our third panel. Dr. Tom Karl, Director of the
National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the Director of the
International Arctic Research Center at the University of
Alaska Fairbanks.
Gentlemen, we're pleased to have you here. We will turn to
Dr. Karl first and wind up with you, Dr. Akasofu. Good morning,
sir.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS R. KARL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CLIMATIC DATA CENTER, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE
Dr. Karl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members
of the committee. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to
testify before you today because NOAA has a variety of climate
observing systems, data, and computer models to help us
understand climate variability and change as it relates to
coastal erosion and flooding in Alaska. Also, because it's
great to be back in Anchorage where I first learned just how
difficult it can be to predict weather as a weather forecaster
in the National Weather Service.
Mr. Chairman, the climate in Alaska is indeed warming. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that most of
the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increases in greenhouse gases, and this was
generally agreed to by the National Research Council Report in
its report to President Bush in 2001. However, as also pointed
out by the NRC and the IPCC, the science of climate change does
have a degree of uncertainty that will make predictions subject
to many revisions in the future.
Alaska's Arctic is recognized as the area of the world
where changes to the climate are likely to be the largest, and
is also an area where natural variability has always been
large. But there are a variety of climate variables that can
directly affect coastal erosion and flooding.
Generally, sea ice is important because it thwarts ocean
wave energy. Wave energy is dependent on distance traveled by
the wind over open water. Less extensive sea ice exposes the
coastline to more frequent and potentially higher ocean waves
and swells. Temperature drives the extent of sea ice, but
changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation also play an
important role in understanding multi-year variations of sea
ice extent. Changes in precipitation type, amount and intensity
as well as snow cover and ice cover extent can also contribute
to coastal erosion from stream flow and overland runoff to the
sea. Loss of permafrost along the coasts can lead to subsidence
of the land that occurs when ice beneath the sea and along the
shoreline melts.
Alaska has considerable permafrost along its northern and
western coasts. The height of the sea level to the land is the
ultimate long-term driver for coastal erosion, but Alaskan sea
level rise is complicated by both climatic factors and geologic
forces.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to show some of these
changes and some of these variables in a viewgraph
presentation, if I can get the projector here.
Chairman Stevens. That's fine.
Dr. Karl. I'll speak to that mike over there.
As I pointed out, the warming in Alaska is among the
largest in the world, and this diagram shows the mean winter
temperature changes from 1965 through 2004.
Let's see if we can get our technician here.
As I was saying, this diagram shows the temperature changes
across the globe over the last 40 years. You can see the dark
areas, Alaska and some of the other Arctic areas in central
Asia, have had the largest warming over these past 40 years,
more than four degrees Celsius. So clearly the Alaska region is
one of the areas----
Chairman Stevens. Four degrees from where to where?
Dr. Karl. From the period 1965 to 2004, so over the last 40
years we have warmed over four degrees Celsius in the Alaska
region. The only other parts of the world that have warmed as
much have been central Asia. This kind of change or the warming
this brings in the higher latitudes is what most of the climate
models have in mind with increasing greenhouse gases.
Chairman Stevens. Have there been changes in the Earth
concomitant with that where the temperatures were lower in this
period?
Dr. Karl. During this period, you will see some there are
some areas in green and blue where temperatures have actually
decreased. So if you look at the Northeast part of North
America, there's some slight cooling, but the level of cooling
is significantly smaller than the rate of temperature increase.
Chairman Stevens. How many degrees cooler?
Dr. Karl. It's about one-half a degree to sometimes three-
quarters of a degree at the largest. Most of the world has been
warming, the largest is in the higher latitudes, especially in
Alaska.
Chairman Stevens. Are there any areas that have cooled to
the extent that this area has warmed?
Dr. Karl. No. This diagram shows the statewide temperatures
for Alaska for the four seasons; winter, spring, summer,
autumn. As you can see, the time series go back to about 1920.
The temperatures for two 5-year periods in the wintertime in
the 1930s and in the 1940s were almost as warm as what we've
seen today, that is you can see by the red bars we sustained a
warming in the last several decades for a much longer period, a
number of record warm temperatures that occurred in the
wintertime, but more significant from the standpoint of
consistent change are the changes occurring in spring and
summer.
Although the overall temperature increases are only two to
three degrees C, we can see them more consistent as
temperatures have a more gradual rise; the same thing in the
summertime, temperatures about one to two degrees C warmer over
the last couple decades compared to earlier in the century.
Often in autumn there is very low evidence for temperature
change. Although I said earlier most of the models predict
higher warming in the latitude, the seasonal character of the
way these changes occur are entirely consistent with what some
of our models suggest.
The next slide shows how these temperature changes stack up
in the four seasons around the world. Red dots represent the
warming, the blue, cooling; the size of the dots are
proportional to the rate of warming. These are in terms of
degrees C per decade. As you can see, Alaska is consistent with
much of the rest of the high latitudes and, again, you'll only
notice blue dots here in the fall over parts of Europe and
parts of Asia and you'll see a few blue dots in the wintertime.
Most of the other seasons you'll see mostly red indicating
warm.
Chairman Stevens. How much of that is related to or
consistent with fallout here in Alaska as compared to the rest
of the world?
Dr. Karl. In terms of aerosols in the air?
Chairman Stevens. Persistent organic pollutants.
Dr. Karl. Soot? Yeah.
Chairman Stevens. Charts that show us persistent organic
pollutants fall in Alaska to a greater extent than anywhere
else in the world.
Dr. Karl. That's a very good question. To be honest with
you--I'll try to be as honest as I possibly can. The amount of
contribution due to soot is known to be significant, but it's
very difficult to put an exact quantifier on that. Dr. Hansen
at the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences has suggested it
may contribute as much as 10, 20 percent, a significant part of
the overall warming. However, this has not yet been confirmed
by the broader scientific community. It's an area of ongoing
research.
The next slide. The next slide is a very important aspect
in understanding coastal erosion and flooding has to do with
sea level changes. These are sea level changes measured from
satellites that have been flown on a joint mission by Alaska
and our French partners. The interesting thing about this
diagram is you see the gradual rise in sea level represents a
doubling of the rise in the rate of sea level compared to the
earlier part of the century.
These measurements are only 10 years long, but if we
compare it to our longer sea level rise, there is some
suggestion that the sea level rise is actually accelerating.
During the 20th century, our best estimates from the time
tables is that sea level rose between one-tenth to two-tenths
of a meter. These data would suggest that sea level, if it
would continue at this rate, would be rising at two- to three-
tenths of a meter. The protections for the 20th century level,
our models suggest that the rate of sea level rising in this
century will be one-tenth of a meter to nine-tenths of a meter.
Chairman Stevens. By what time?
Dr. Karl. By the end of the century. Between one-tenth and
nine-tenths of a meter by the end of this century.
At the present rate of sea level rise, two- to three-tenths
of a meter; this is significantly less than the high end as
predicted by the models. But there is a considerable amount of
uncertainty because we don't quite know what will happen to the
Greenland Ice Sheet, whether the increase of margin will
accumulate more snow up there or whether the increased margin
will melt more snow and the accumulation of snow won't be able
to compensate.
So the bottom line here is sea level is indeed rising, and
there's some potential it may actually be accelerating from the
last decade. The next diagram shows what's happening to sea ice
extent. It's very important because as we mentioned, sea ice
extent is a good buffer for the wave energy. But sea ice is
melting, and in fact if you take a look at the rate of sea ice
melt in spring, the red line, we've lost more sea ice since
1950 than equivalent to the size of the State of Alaska.
At the rate of sea ice melt, by the first part of the next
century we will not have summer sea ice in the Arctic. There
are a number of models that have been run to try to look at
what would be projected in terms of sea ice melt rate. There's
a suggestion in one of the most extreme models that sea ice
could entirely melt from the Arctic in the first half of this
century. Most other models suggest that there would still be
sea ice into the beginning of the 22nd century.
Chairman Stevens. What about the Antarctic? When we were
down there, I was told that the ice in the Antarctic is
increasing.
Dr. Karl. Because it's so much colder in the Antarctic,
even though the temperature is warm, the accumulated precip
actually increases. So it's quite conceivable that ice and snow
in the Antarctic could actually increase as opposed to
decreasing. Here in the Arctic we don't have extreme
temperatures like the central parts of the Antarctic.
The next slide here is an important aspect of the ability
of storms to generate waves. As the sea ice melts, the number
of intense winter cyclones, or intense cyclones any time of
year is important because they're responsible for high seas.
The best data that we have suggests that the number of intense
winter cyclones is in fact increasing.
This diagram shows the number that you would expect in any
square mile across the North Pacific. You can see that the
trend is increasing. We're not 100 percent sure that this data
is as robust as we see it because we know we are better able to
measure the storms over the last 20 years because of
satellites, and we try to account for that in these time
series, but we're not sure we have been able to eliminate all
of that potential bias.
Most models suggest that there may be more intense cyclones
as global temperatures increase, but, again, that's not a real
clear indication because of some key factors. One factor would
suggest that the temperature would raise between the poles, so
cyclones should decrease as well. Another factor on higher
levels of the atmosphere suggests it will go the other way. So
the jury is still out on the effect of understanding this, but
the data on this suggests we are seeing more intense cyclones.
The next slide shows a reduction in snow cover extent. I
won't spend much time here. But less snow cover extent exposes
the land to precipitation.
The next diagram shows--I'll skip this in the interest of
time. The next shows how precipitation has changed. It's very
difficult to measure precipitation in Alaska because the
density of stations up here is much less than it is, for
example, in the Lower 48. Our best estimates suggest that
precipitation increases 10 to 12 percent mainly in the summer
and wintertime. Interestingly enough, what we're finding is
that most of the increase where we have more stations south of
62 degrees north, that increases the coming of heavier
precipitation events. Of course that's more conducive to
erosion and potential flooding. The next diagram shows----
Chairman Stevens. Pardon me. How extensive is your coverage
of the coastline?
Dr. Karl. The coastline is probably--I say probably because
I haven't done an analysis--but off the top of my head I would
suspect that the coastline is probably better monitored in the
interior, but still considerably undermonitored compared to the
Lower 48, for example. Another issue in trying to understand
the precipitation is trying to adjust for the biases of wind-
driven snow. It's quite a challenge to try and make sure we are
actually measuring precipitation as opposed to snow that's
falling in the gauge. This will give you an idea of the size of
the corrections we have to apply to some of the data. This is
for Fairbanks. The black line is true; the red line has been
adjusted for biases.
The next diagram shows some of the stations that were
installed in Alaska. This is in Fairbanks, Alaska. You can see
the elevated fence around the precipitation gauge trying to
eliminate wind-blown snow into the gauge.
The next diagram presents a bit of the challenge that we
have. This is a station we put up in Barrow, and you can see
polar bears decided to do some modifications, as you see the
way these shields are bent, the polar bear decided it looked
kind of interesting.
Again, these are some of the challenges, and I think one of
our key contributions in future years will be to increase the
density of stations and observing sites across the State.
If I could just conclude. Changes in the Alaska climate are
among the largest in the world. They have likely played an
important role in determining the extent of coastal erosion and
flooding in Alaska and are likely to continue to do so in the
future. Accelerated coastal erosion and flooding in Alaska
cannot be ruled out.
We at NOAA have got numerous climate monitoring, data
management and analyses, and climate modeling activities that
should help us understand, adapt and mitigate the impact of
climate variability and change on the State of Alaska.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to contribute to
this important hearing. I look forward to answering any
questions you might have.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Dr. Karl.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Thomas R. Karl
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: As Director of the
National Climatic Data Center, which is part of NOAA's Satellite and
Information Services, and Program Manager for NOAA's Climate
Observations and Analysis Program, I am pleased to have the opportunity
to testify before you today. NOAA has a variety of climate observing
systems, data, and computer models to help us understand climate
variability and change as it relates to coastal erosion and flooding in
Alaska.
Climate Change in the Arctic
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that
most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increases in greenhouse gases, and this was generally
agreed to by the National Research Council (NRC) in its report to
President Bush in 2001. However, as also pointed out by the NRC and the
IPCC the science of climate change does have a degree of uncertainty
that will make predictions subject to many revisions in the future.
The Arctic is recognized as the area of the world where changes to
the climate are likely to be the largest, and is also an area where
natural variability has always been large. Current climate models
predict a greater warming for the Arctic than for the rest of the
globe. The amount of warming would lead to significant impacts. The
projections of future changes however, are complicated by possible
interactions involving stratospheric ozone, human-induced atmospheric
aerosols, and changes in other parts of the Arctic system. For this
reason, current estimates of future changes to the Arctic vary
significantly among climate models. The model results disagree as to
both the magnitude of changes and the regional aspects of these
changes. We also know that the Arctic undergoes considerable natural
climate variation on decadal and longer time scales and this must be
considered in addition to any anthropogenic change.
As an outgrowth of discussions among NOAA, the Arctic Council and
the International Arctic Science Committee, and the National Science
Foundation in fiscal year 2000, it was agreed that the International
Arctic Research Center (IARC) could be the site for the Secretariat of
a new international activity, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
(ACIA). As an activity of the Arctic Council, the ACIA is nearing
completion. Scientists from all eight Arctic countries have contributed
to its completion. NOAA is the minor co-sponsor of the ACIA, while the
National Science Foundation is providing the major support to the ACIA
through the IARC. The Secretariat for the ACIA is located at the
University of Alaska and is headed by Dr. Gunter Weller, who is also
Director of NOAA's Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research.
The ACIA will result in improved knowledge regarding past climate
variability and change over the entire Arctic, projections of Arctic
climate variability in the future, and an evaluation of the impacts of
climate variability and change on the biological environment, human
uses of the environment, and social structures. The Arctic Council will
use this knowledge to prepare a policy report discussing actions that
governments should consider in response to anticipated changes in
Arctic climate. More information on ACIA can be found on its website at
http://www.acia.uaf.edu.
Climate Considerations Related to Coastal Erosion and Flooding in
Alaska
There are a variety of climate variables that can directly affect
coastal erosion. Our degree of uncertainty regarding how these
variables are changing and could change over the course of the 21st
Century is not uniform from variable to variable. For climate
monitoring, this uncertainty arises from the length of the data record,
its spatial and temporal resolution, as well as the capability of
instruments used to measure climate-related change. Many of our long-
term climate model projections are also subject to considerable
uncertainty. Climate variables of particular interest related to
coastal erosion and flooding include: (1) sea ice, snow cover, and
permafrost extent all directly driven by temperature change and to some
extent by atmospheric and oceanic circulation; (2) storminess as
related to wave height and storm surges; (3) precipitation and related
snow and ice cover; and (4) sea level as related to land ice, ocean
temperature, and movement of the land relative to the ocean owing to
geologic features and glacial rebound of the land as land ice melts.
Generally, sea ice extent is important because it thwarts ocean
wave energy. Wave energy is dependent on distance traveled by the wind
over open water. Less extensive sea ice exposes the coastline to more
frequent and potentially higher ocean waves and swells. Temperature
drives the extent of sea ice, but changes in atmospheric and ocean
circulation also play an important role in understanding multi-year
variations of sea ice extent. Changes in precipitation type, amount and
intensity as well as snow and ice cover extent, can also contribute to
coastal erosion from stream flow and overland runoff to the sea. Loss
of permafrost along coasts can lead to subsidence of the land that
occurs when ice beneath the sea and along the shoreline melts. Alaska
has considerable permafrost along its northern and western coasts. The
height of the sea relative to the land is the ultimate long-term driver
for coastal erosion, but Alaskan sea level rise is complicated by both
climatic factors and geologic forces affecting local and regional
changes in the height of the land relative to the ocean.
Atmospheric Temperature
Temperatures in Alaska have increased. Observed data indicate that
Alaskan spring and summer surface temperatures have increased by about
2 to 3 degrees Celsius (about 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) in the last
few decades. However, there are no discernible trends of temperature
during autumn, and changes in winter temperature are more complex.
There were two five-year periods in the first half of the 20th Century
when temperatures were nearly as warm as today, but during recent
decades record-breaking high temperatures have become more common.
Although the number of reporting stations in Alaska is quite low
relative to our station network in mid-latitudes, the data
uncertainties are not large enough to overwhelm the increases observed.
Additionally, NOAA has now established two Climate Reference Stations
to help discern any acceleration or deceleration of current temperature
trends.
Most climate model projections for temperature change during the
21st Century suggest that Alaska, and the Arctic as a whole, will warm
at least twice as much as the rest of the world. The warming is
expected to be largest during the cold half of the year. The observed
lack of warming during the autumn and the relatively large increases
during other times of the year is not entirely consistent with model
projections. They do not depict this asymmetry. This suggests we
require more observations, and better and higher resolution models.
As temperatures increase and more sea ice is melted, a natural
climate feedback occurs, due to the less reflective character of the
ocean formerly covered by sea ice. These feedbacks can lead to an
accelerated warming and additional sea ice melting. For example, the
average of the five models used in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
project substantial reductions in summertime sea ice around the entire
Arctic Basin, with one model projecting an ice-free Arctic in the
summer by the middle of this century. On average, the climate models
project an acceleration of sea ice retreat, with periods of extensive
melting spreading progressively further into spring and fall.
Sea Ice Extent
Large portions of Arctic sea ice form during the cold seasons and
melt during the warm seasons. Considerable sea ice persists through the
melt-season, but due to ocean circulation and the resultant movement,
multi-year sea ice makes up only a fraction of the total ice extent.
Our records indicate that the formation of new sea ice each year cannot
keep up with the rate of melting. This melting is consistent with
observed surface warming. Arctic sea ice has been steadily decreasing
since the 1950s, measured largely from continuous coverage provided by
NOAA polar orbiting satellites beginning in the 1970s. Prior to that
time, assessment of Arctic sea ice extent during the first half of the
20th Century was limited to reports from land stations and ocean
surface observations. We have less confidence in the data from the
first part of the Century, but independent anecdotal evidence, such as
interviews with native peoples of Alaska, also suggests substantially
greater sea ice extent during this time. NOAA is working to increase
our sea ice monitoring capability through ice-tethered buoys to
determine sea ice thickness and other key aspects of sea ice.
It is important to understand the trends of coastal sea ice extent
since sea ice extent is an important determinant of wave energy
affecting coastlines. As the storms which create wave energy also have
a strong component of seasonality, it is important to know how sea ice
is changing by season. In the Pacific, major extra-tropical storms
occur most frequently during autumn through spring. Since the 1950s,
sea ice extent during winter and autumn has decreased from 15 to 14 and
12 to 11 million square kilometers, respectively. Since the 1950s,
decreases in spring and summer are substantially greater, down from an
average of 15 to 12 and 11 to 8 million square miles, respectively.
This is equivalent to more than 10 percent of the North American land
mass and is a larger area than the State of Alaska. At the present rate
of decrease, the Arctic would be ice-free in summer during the first
half of the 22nd Century. All climate models project this trend to
continue regardless of the emission scenario used and the sensitivity
of the model.
Storms
The climatology of Pacific Ocean storms favors the development of
the strongest storms (extra-tropical cyclones) from autumn to spring.
Although there are remaining uncertainties in the quality of data,
analyses of Pacific Ocean extra-tropical cyclones over the past 50
years indicate little change in the total number, but a significant
increase in the number of intense cyclones (storms with low central
pressure and resultant high winds and waves). The increase in extra-
tropical storms is punctuated with considerable year-to-year
variability. The extent to which the increase in intense cyclones is
related to global warming remains uncertain, although there is some
evidence to suggest as the world warms the intensity of cyclones could
increase. But because there are competing factors that act to cancel
each other, the case for an increase in cyclone intensity is yet to be
settled. Similarly, our ability to remove biases in the data also
remains uncertain owing to more plentiful data on storm intensity in
recent decades.
Regardless of whether intense cyclones are increasing in number or
whether they will increase in the future, the greater expanse of open
water with less extensive sea ice means that ocean waves with resultant
coastal erosion can occur more frequently and with greater impact.
Precipitation and Snow Cover Extent
One of the most difficult quantities to measure across the State of
Alaska is precipitation. This is due to the variable nature of
precipitation in general, the relatively low number of observing
stations across the State, and the difficulty of providing high-quality
data in the harsh Arctic environment. Over time, we anticipate that
NOAA's Climate Reference Network and the modernization of NOAA's
Cooperative Observing Network could help to alleviate this problem.
Based on existing records, however, there is evidence to indicate
that during the past 40 years as temperatures have warmed, more
precipitation is now falling in liquid form (rain) as opposed to solid
form (snow, ice). The quantity of precipitation has also increased
during the 20th Century, with much of that occurring during the recent
period of warming over the past 40 years. The increase is estimated to
be between 10 to 20 percent with most of the increase occurring during
the summer and winter as opposed to the transition seasons. Owing to
greater overall precipitation in the summer, the percent increase in
summer equates to a greater quantity of precipitation compared to
winter.
The large uncertainty in the estimated precipitation trends is, in
large part, attributed to the low density of observing stations, but
also stems from the difficulty of measuring wind-blown solid
precipitation. Analyses of changes in heavy precipitation events have
been conducted for areas south of 62 degrees north latitude, and they
show that the frequency of heavy precipitation events has substantially
(30 to 40 percent) increased during the past several decades.
Additionally, a disproportionate amount of the precipitation increase
is attributed to the heaviest precipitation events.
Climate models project that precipitation will increase by a
greater proportion in the high latitudes compared to the rest of the
world. This is consistent from model to model, as is the fact that this
increase is expected to be disproportionately large in the heavier
precipitation events. Both can lead to increased erosion.
NOAA's polar-orbiting environmental satellite data and surface-
based observations have also observed major changes in snow cover
extent. North American snow cover extent has decreased by about 1
million square kilometers and this trend is expected to continue or
accelerate. Surface observers also report a one to two week reduction
in the number of days with snow on the ground across the State. In
addition, in the Arctic, the lake and river ice season is now estimated
to be 12 days less compared to the 19th Century.
The increase in total precipitation and liquid precipitation,
especially when falling on less extensive snow cover, can affect soil
erosion. However, the complicated effects of changes in precipitation
type and intensity, earlier break-up of winter ice, and less extensive
snow cover have not been well evaluated with respect to potential
impacts on coastal erosion and flooding. It will be necessary to know
which factor dominates in order to understand whether coastal erosion
and flooding will be enhanced or ameliorated due to changes in
precipitation and snow cover extent.
Permafrost
The thawing of the permafrost, especially along the northern
coasts, is expected to continue. Long-term measurements of temperatures
within the permafrost are rare, but it is clear that as the air and
ocean temperatures have warmed permafrost is also melting. As
permafrost melts along the coastlines the effect on coastal erosion can
be compounded by sea ice retreat. The thaw causes the land to subside
along the shore exposing more land to the action of the waves.
Sea Level
As ocean temperatures warm and glacial ice melts, global average
sea level is increasing. Sea level rise during the 20th Century is
estimated to be between 0.1 and 0.2 meters. To put this in context, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that during
the last 6,000 years, global average sea level variations on time-
scales of a few hundred years and longer are likely to have been less
than 0.3 to 0.5 meters. The IPCC also notes that no significant
acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has
been detected.
Under a scenario of climate warming, climate models project changes
in sea level by the end of the 21st Century of between 0.1 to 0.9
meters. This large range is related to uncertainties regarding
increasing snowfall in Greenland and Antarctica as the climate warms
(warm air can hold more water vapor leading to heavier snowfall when
temperatures are below freezing) versus the rate of melting due to
warming. Generally, increases in sea level are projected by climate
models to be higher in high latitudes. Such a general increase in sea
level would expose more land to coastal erosion through wave energy and
storm surges.
However, it is important to recognize that there are many local and
regional variations of sea level rise and such variations are no
exception in Alaska. Complications arise due to geologic forces, the
rebound of the land as glaciers melt and, in some areas, local
engineering projects. For some areas in Alaska, sea level is actually
falling due to natural geologic and glacial rebound effects, (e.g.,
parts of Southeast Alaska), but this is generally not the case in much
of Alaska. The global rise in sea level is due to both melting of land
ice and the thermal expansion of ocean water. There are other factors
that also play a role in sea level such as the amount of water held
back by human-made land reservoirs, leading to sea level falls, but
this effect does not dominate.
NOAA maintains a global network of tide gauges that have provided
the only data to calculate global sea-level rise prior to the satellite
era. High quality tide-gauges are a high priority within NOAA to ensure
adequate reference points to gauge sea level changes. NASA, in
cooperation with our French partners, has been flying a satellite
altimeter as part of their Topex/Poseidon and JASON missions. These
missions provide high precision global sea level data when calibrated
with NOAA and other country tide-gauges. Recent analyses of these data
suggest that global sea level may have accelerated its increase during
the 1990s by a factor of two or more compared to increases. Additional
data will be required to confirm such a trend, and points to the
importance of continuing satellite altimetry missions and maintenance
and expansion of global tide gauges.
Conclusion
Changes in Alaskan climate are among the largest in the world. They
have likely played an important role in determining the extent of
coastal erosion and flooding in Alaska and are likely to continue to do
so in the future. Accelerated coastal erosion and flooding in Alaska
cannot be ruled out.
NOAA has numerous climate monitoring, data management and analyses,
and climate modeling activities that should help us understand, adapt
and mitigate the impact of climate variability and change on the State
of Alaska.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for allowing me to contribute to this
important hearing. I look forward to answering any questions you might
have.
Chairman Stevens. Your turn, Dr. Akasofu.
STATEMENT OF DR. SYUN-ICHI AKASOFU, DIRECTOR,
INTERNATIONAL ARCTIC RESEARCH CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, FAIRBANKS
Dr. Akasofu. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for providing me an opportunity to testify at this
important hearing today.
I'd like to address the cause and effect of climate change
on the coasts and coastal communities of Alaska.
First of all, it's important to recognize that prominent
climate change has been in progress in the Arctic during the
last several decades. During the past few decades, the area of
the Arctic Ocean sea ice has shrunk approximately 5 to 10
percent, but at an accelerating rate, and its thickness is
decreasing.
Mr. Chairman, I would like for you to see viewgraphs. Is it
okay if I stand here?
Chairman Stevens. Yes, sir, go ahead.
Dr. Akasofu. This shows the changes of sea ice in the
Arctic Ocean from 1979 to 2003. So you can see quite a bit of
shrinkage.
Chairman Stevens. What time of year is that, Doctor?
Dr. Akasofu. Since 1979 and then we are comparing 1979 and
2003.
Chairman Stevens. Spring, summer, fall? What is it?
Dr. Akasofu. The summer, and 1979 the first time that
satellite data became available, so those are satellite data.
The Arctic is quite unique in that, as the previous speaker
mentioned, climate change is prominent in comparison to the
rest of the Earth. It is generally believed that various ice
forms in the Arctic cause positive feedback in enhancing
climate change.
Many of these climate change phenomena in the Arctic could
be interpreted as a result of ``warming,'' the warming in
quotations. Scientists have been seriously debating whether or
not the cause of the ``warming'' is natural or manmade. Here,
``manmade'' means the greenhouse effect. It's fair to say,
both. Then the question is, how much each is contributing. I do
not think that any decent scientist can claim explicitly how
much the greenhouse effect is contributing to the present
Arctic ``warming'' trend.
So I'd like to show you an example. It's a bit difficult to
see. The shrinking of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean appears to be
related to inflow of warm North Atlantic waters into the Arctic
Ocean. You can see the red one, the green one, Alaska near the
top. The red one is the warm Atlantic water coming into the
Arctic Ocean.
The strength of the inflow varies as a part of what we call
the North Atlantic oscillation, which is a natural phenomenon;
it has multi-decadal periods and has been intense during the
last several decades, so that it is not really accurate to
claim that the present shrinking of sea ice is all manmade.
Many scientists find ``warming'' trends, but cannot refer to
their causes explicitly, and the press takes excerpts from
these to claim that all warming is manmade.
The scientific consensus is that large natural variations
are superimposed on any trend caused by greenhouse effects, as
the previous speaker also emphasized. But what's important here
is that aside from the debates on the cause of the ``warming,''
is that climate change is in progress and Alaskans have to face
this trend seriously. Since the subject of coastal erosion is
not my specialty, I consulted with several of my colleagues
including Dr. Orson Smith, School of Engineering, UAA, Dr. John
Walsh, International Arctic Research Center, and Dr. Glenn
Juday, UAF. As far as coastal erosion is concerned, they are of
the opinion that sea level rise caused by global warming is
expected to be about 16 inches, 40 centimeters, in the next 100
years. With the present rate it is not the most serious threat
in the near future.
The most important threat comes from the expected retreat
of sea ice in this region. In fact, this almost looks like the
new movie, ``The Day After Tomorrow.'' So what's happening is
that because the sea ice is retreating, the gap between the
coastline and the sea ice, that is the place that intense
cyclones tend to form. In fact, during the last 6 or 7 years or
so, of seven damaging coastal flood events, five were born in
the Arctic Ocean.
This was a study by the National Weather Service in
Fairbanks. And so this is the type of cyclone. In fact, this
caused very severe damage in Barrow and I'm sure in other
places.
This diagram shows that looking at the entire Arctic
region, the number of extreme events causing coastline erosion
have been increasing from about the 1960s. The only problem we
have now is that we have not finished looking at the data
earlier. So how this trend is a new trend or was there any
earlier event similar to that, we are not investigating. So at
least I can say that at this point there are some newspaper
articles to say in some of the villages this is due to global
warming. This is very hard to prove.
Definitely the coastline is changing, but we are not sure--
that's hard to prove that this is due to a greenhouse effect. I
had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Kenneth Toovak, Sr. in
Barrow. He was trying to explain that at the present time the--
this is from Barrow to Point Barrow Road--and this is what's
happening now, that the waves are crossing. And at the present
time lots of water is going on to make this the barrier, but he
thinks that it's not really working. Waves are still crossing.
He is of the opinion that the sloughs are a way of building the
bank much better. So that's what he told me.
I would like to conclude my testimony.
Chairman Stevens. Doctor, to what extent will this be--it's
on the west coast as well as the Arctic coast?
Dr. Akasofu. I'm sorry, I don't have data on this, but
definitely my understanding is that coastline erosion in Alaska
is very serious. But I cannot compare Alaskan erosion and the
west coast's erosion in general.
Chairman Stevens. I mean the west coast of Alaska.
Dr. Akasofu. At the present time this is what we call
extreme event, very intense cyclones tend to form Northwest of
Alaska in the open sea area and then start to move to the
Southeast direction. So hitting the Barrow area and also the
northern part of the Bering Sea because of the straight
coastline. So I think they are about the same. The cyclones
tend to form in the open sea because the sea is open now and
then move toward Barrow. That is a general trend the National
Weather Service people told me.
Chairman Stevens. And the thinning of the sea ice means
that the shoreline is more affected by the wave action coming
in?
Dr. Akasofu. The sea ice tends to protect the coastline
from the big waves, but now if this warming trend or shrinkage
of the Arctic Ocean sea ice continues, the coastline, the
protection by the sea ice is lost. Also the open sea tends to
encourage the formation of intense cyclones. Is this a new
trend or what? At the International Arctic Research Center
we're trying to find out.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Doctor.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing
today.
Today, I would like to address the cause and effect of climate
change on the coasts and coastal communities of Alaska.
First of all, it is important to recognize that prominent climate
change has been in progress in the Arctic during the last several
decades. During the past few decades, the area of the Arctic Ocean sea
ice has shrunk approximately 5-10 percent, but at an accelerating rate,
and its thickness is decreasing (from about 4m to 3m). Many Alaskan
glaciers are receding; the Columbia Glacier is receding at a speed of
more than 10m per year. Permafrost temperature in Alaska is changing.
Air temperature records show an increase of 1 C ( 2 F) per decade in
Siberia, Alaska, and Canada; the global average increase is about 0.6
C ( 1.2 F) per century.
The Arctic is quite unique in that climate change is prominent in
comparison to the rest of the earth. It is generally believed that
various ice forms in the Arctic cause positive feed-back in enhancing
climate change.
Many of these climate change phenomena in the Arctic could be
interpreted as results of warming. Scientists have been seriously
debating whether or not the cause of the warming is natural or man-
made? Here, man-made means the greenhouse effect. It is fair to say,
both. Then, the question is how much each is contributing? I do not
think that any decent scientist can claim explicitly how much the
greenhouse effect is contributing to the present arctic warming trend.
I would like to summarize several important findings of the arctic
research community.
The shrinking sea ice in the Arctic Ocean appears to be related to
inflow of warm North Atlantic waters into the Arctic Ocean. The
strength of the inflow varies as a part of the North Atlantic
Oscillation (NAO), which is a natural phenomenon; it has multi-decadal
periods and has been intense during the last several decades, so that
it is not accurate to claim that the present shrinking of sea ice is
all man-made. It is not certain if NAO is enhanced by the greenhouse
effect.
Some of the past records on glaciers indicate that glaciers in
Alaska and Greenland began receding as early as 1900 or earlier (e.g.
the Portage Glacier), well before the CO2 increase became
serious. Furthermore, the collapse of the Columbia Glacier is partly
due to mechanical causes. In Norway, glaciers are advancing.
Permafrost temperatures decreased until about 1970 and then began
to increase. The increase appears to have slowed down recently.
Meanwhile, the amount of CO2 has been increasing
monotonically since 1900.
These are a few examples to show that it is not appropriate to
claim all warming trends are caused by the greenhouse effect. The
collapse of houses built on permafrost is certainly man-made (heating),
not a direct consequence of the greenhouse effect. There is too much
confusion on such issues.
Computer modeling has been improved greatly during the last decade
or so. However, the computer is a very imperfect ``earth'' when we
conduct CO2 experiments with it. For example, clouds cause
warming by trapping infrared radiation, but cause cooling by reflecting
solar energy back to space. Scientists are still debating which is more
important. A computer behaves exactly as we instruct. Until we
understand quantitatively all major processes related to climate
change, a computer cannot provide reasonably accurate prediction on
future climate. Computer modeling is now predicting the shrinking of
sea ice in the Arctic Ocean in 2050 or 2100. However, the models cannot
reproduce the seasonal changes; observations show the maximum shrinking
in summer, while computer simulations indicate it to be in the winter.
There are still many contradictions of this kind. We have too many
unknown factors in instructing the computer. There is still too much
unknown to rely completely on the computer to predict the temperature
in 2100.
Many scientists find warming trends, but can't refer to their
causes explicitly, and the press takes excerpts from these to claim
that all warming is man-made. The scientific consensus is that large
natural variations are superimposed on any trend caused by greenhouse
effects. I would like to repeat that any decent scientist cannot claim
explicitly how much the greenhouse effect is contributing to the
present arctic warming trend.
What is important here, aside from the debate on the cause of the
warming, is that climate change is in progress and Alaskans have to
face the trend seriously. Since the subject of coastal erosion is not
my specialty, I consulted with several of my colleagues including Dr.
Orson Smith, School of Engineering, UAA, Dr. John Walsh, International
Arctic Research Center, and Dr. Glenn Juday, UAF.
Coastal Erosion
Sea level rise caused by global warming is expected to be about
40cm ( 16 inches) in 2100. With the present rate, it is not the most
serious threat in the near future.
The most important threat comes from the expected retreat of sea
ice, exposing coastlines to wave/surge effects.
According to the National Weather Service, there were 7 damaging
coastal flood events during the last six years. Among them, five were
caused by cyclones that were born in the open region of the Arctic
Ocean and moved in the SW direction. Both Kivalina and Shishmaref are
affected by this effect. This is a new trend. Furthermore, according to
National Weather Service research, a number of intense cyclones over
the entire Arctic have been increasing in recent years. However, it is
hard to prove that such a trend is caused by global warming.
In this report I would like to mention that Mr. Kenneth Toovak,
Sr., Barrow, is of the opinion that the present bank-building in Barrow
is not working. I would also like to add also that Dr. Orson Smith has
made various presentations on the subject of design criteria in
preventing coastal erosion.
Permafrost Melting and Others
The temperature of permafrost is near the melting point (0 C/32
F) in the interior of Alaska, so that permafrost in the Interior is
quite sensitive to climate change, in particular to the present warming
trend. As you are well aware, thawing of permafrost causes considerable
damage to house structures, roads, forests, and other structures.
In addition to the warming trend, the precipitation has decreased
considerably in the Interior during recent years, causing a variety of
effects on vegetation. Trees are suffering directly from this effect
and also indirectly from insects.
Mission of the International Arctic Research Center
An important responsibility of scientists at IARC and the arctic
research community is to reduce uncertainty of the present prediction
of: the southern edge of sea ice of the Arctic Ocean; the occurrence of
extreme events; permafrost temperature; temperature and precipitation;
and shift of the tree line.
The first two studies will be able to bring fruitful collaboration
as we combine efforts of scientists and engineers at both UAF and UAA.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony
today, and thank you for your interest in this important issue. Please
feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Chairman Stevens. I must confess that the variety of
reports we've had, it's amazing we haven't had more of these
stations put up in Alaska.
Dr. Karl, is your agency seeking establishment of these
sort of listening posts in the area where this change is taking
place?
Dr. Karl. Yes, Senator. In fact, you asked a question
earlier that I could clarify. My colleague from the National
Weather Service did in fact indicate that 5 to 10 percent of
the stations in Alaska are along the coast. It's probably one
of our greatest needs, is additional stations.
We have a number of additional programs ongoing. We have a
cooperative weather observation monitorization program going on
in the agency, which over time will increase and improve the
observing sites in Alaska. We have a couple of climate network
stations and we're working hard trying to increase the number
up in Alaska.
We have 20 or so tie gauges, which are extremely important
to help pin down the satellite measurements from space. The
measurement of precipitation, as I mentioned, also could be
important for some of the inland areas for erosion. Yes, indeed
we are trying to improve the networks.
Chairman Stevens. Are these floating buoys, are they the
ones you've got permanently affixed to the land?
Dr. Karl. Well, working in cooperation with some of the
other agencies, I've asked to have some ice-tethered buoys in
the Arctic to not only trying to measure ocean temperatures,
but to actually look at the ice thickness because that also
would be an important key, to look at how ice extent will
change if we can better understand what ice thickness is
actually doing.
Chairman Stevens. Are you working with the Corps of
Engineers on this project, or is this your own?
Dr. Karl. Right now we are not to my knowledge working with
the Corps of Engineers on that project. We have in the past,
around the 1980s, completed some spectral looking at wave
extent for the Army Corps on a number of coastlines that
enabled them to be able to use that for planning.
To do those analyses requires a dedicated effort to go back
and look at all the historical data and run a model
consistently to generate data to see how they're changing.
Today you can actually project in the future on various
scenarios to see how that might change.
Chairman Stevens. There's no requested funding for
additional sites?
Dr. Karl. In the President's budget there is funding for
additional sites for a climate reference network and a weather
monitorization program.
Chairman Stevens. In Alaska, that is?
Dr. Karl. Two included in Alaska.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much.
Dr. Akasofu, do you see any emergencies arising out of the
information that's available to you so far as far as the Arctic
is concerned? Any of these things that have to be done now to
try to deal with these changes that you predict?
Dr. Akasofu. What I can say is that what we call extreme
events, they tend to happen in Alaska about once a year. But
there is indication they're increasing in number, but I do not
see that right away immediately that the extreme events come
once a year, so----
Chairman Stevens. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. This is an interesting discussion. I'm
interested in these cyclones. Tell me what they are. I was
raised in the Midwest. I know what a cyclone is as far as the
Midwest is concerned. We call them tornadoes today, but they
used to be called cyclones.
Dr. Karl. Yes, and I apologize for not clarifying that.
Probably the best way to describe it is in the Midwest it's a
winter storm, the kind of weather you get with a winter storm
in the Midwest where you get winds and snow or rain.
Senator Burns. No. A cyclone--it's a circular motion like a
tornado.
Dr. Karl. In terms of the terminology I use--I understand
people have used the term cyclone or tornadoes in the Midwest,
but tropical cyclones is a term that the scientific community
has given to storms that are outside the tropics. Inside the
tropics is a tropical cyclone. They really refer to large-scale
circulations. These are circulations that are thousands of
miles across, typical to the winter storms that you would see
in the Midwest. When I said the number of intense winter
cyclones are increasing, I'm referring to those kinds of storms
that you would experience in the Midwest during the wintertime.
Senator Burns. But our storms aren't circular. They're just
a straight wind, and on those blizzards and everything like
that. I mean, that's a straight wind. That has no circular
motion to it at all. I'm not going to get into semantics with
you.
I would like to see some of your slides. I would like to
take some slides that you showed us. I would like to have a
copy of those, if I could. I would suggest that there's a book
on the market. It came out about 10 or 15 years ago written by
a man by the name of Hancock, ``Fingerprints of the Gods.''
Have you read that?
Dr. Karl. No, I haven't.
Senator Burns. Have you ever heard about it?
Dr. Karl. No, I haven't.
Senator Burns. There's a 28,000-year wobble in the Earth. I
can have a man that's got a doctorate in geology that would
come up and tell you that the equator used to go across
Montana. Where are we finding our dinosaurs in our digs?
They're found in the Dakotas and Montana. We know that their
environment was tropical mostly, very warm, and that's where
we're finding them today.
Have we done any bores in the ice in the Arctic that would
give us some idea of the changing of seasons?
Dr. Karl. Yes, we have actually, Senator, have cores both
in Greenland as well as Antarctica to help try and understand.
I think perhaps what you're referring to is the Milankovitch
cycles.
Senator Burns. Have we had changes in climate this dramatic
before in the history of those ice packs?
Dr. Karl. One of the difficulties in looking at those today
is trying to get the resolution that would be needed to look at
a very small period of time like the erosion over the last 4
years. But indeed, there's been large changes in the past that
occurred over longer periods of time. There is an interesting
issue--the National Research Council put out a report on the
climate change. There is some suggestions in the past that
indeed sometimes the climate can change very abruptly. For
example, 11,500 years ago when the glaciers were melting and
the St. Lawrence River broke into the Atlantic and changed the
climate for 500 years in Europe and North America as the world
was in fact warming. Indeed there is evidence in the past that
we've had abrupt climate changes.
Senator Burns. Well, we had the Missoula flood, too, that
went all the way to Portland. What I'm saying is that, yes, I
think we're in a climate change, but I think we're always in a
constant climate change. If there's a wobble in the Earth, and
Hancock pretty well substantiated that in this book that I
would suggest you read, and it had to do with the building, of
all things, the pyramids, and also how they relate to Machu
Picchu and how similar mindsets--how they relate to each other
and the times that they were built. And what happened to all of
that knowledge it took to build a perfect pyramid went away for
some reason or another. Also, the dinosaurs and other what we
refer to as prehistoric animals. What happened to them, that
lived in a tropical setting in a tropical environment, which
that's what their bones tell us. Yet they're being found in an
area where it's basically very cold today and semi-arid.
I think there has to be some reading on this. I'm not a
very educated guy. I don't have a college education. I just run
cows. But it seems like even the rings of trees will tell us,
the growth range of the canyon of the trees will tell us what
kind of seasons we have.
Dr. Akasofu, do you want to comment on that?
Dr. Akasofu. I think what you're emphasizing is there are
many natural changes, so the question is now--what's happening
now, is it natural changes or man-made or both? If both, how
much is due to man-made? That's the one that scientists are
working on, emphasizing the major natural changes.
Senator Burns. Well, we know it wasn't a man-made situation
that done away with the dinosaurs, I don't think. Thank you for
these. I appreciate these slides and your information. Very
interesting. I appreciate your testimony, too. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Dr. Burns, thank you very much. Dr.
Sununu.
Senator Sununu. I would also like a copy of the slides. I
thought they were well done.
Dr. Akasofu, you talked about the impact of the North
Atlantic oscillator on the retreat of the sea ice in the North
Atlantic, and that it's a variation and the movement or the
strength of that oscillator. Is there a good series of data
going back 30 or 40 years to try to correlate?
Dr. Akasofu. That's as far as we can go, and you can see
that this temperature changes that go with the NAO, North
Atlantic oscillation. They start to increase around 1920 and
they reached a 1940 maximum and then began to decrease until
about 1970 and started to increase.
Senator Sununu. So the blue line that says Arctic----
Dr. Akasofu. The blue is Arctic and the red one is the
global average that most people talk about.
Senator Sununu. The blue line labeled Arctic, is that the
temperature of the North Atlantic oscillator or the temperature
at a particular point?
Dr. Akasofu. Around the Arctic coastline at more than 50
observatories and this is the average. It represents the Arctic
situation.
Senator Sununu. But it's the land temperature or----
Dr. Akasofu. Coastland, yes. So we have the effect of both
the land and the ocean as well. The Arctic Ocean temperature
changes in a similar way. So there's a big natural change, as
you can see, and what we have been--I've been looking at is the
changes after 1970. And our question is, we had something
similar around 1920 to 1940, so the question is: Is the
increase after 1970 due to man-made or natural? We're not sure
yet.
Senator Sununu. Do you have a similar time series that
shows the inflows or the temperature of the inflows from the
North Atlantic?
Dr. Akasofu. We have also a data from North Atlantic
seawater, a very similar change. So we think that the inflow,
the intensity changes all the time over a period. It's very
interesting, the Arctic temperature.
Senator Sununu. You note in your testimony that there are
some places here in Alaska that are advancing. Although you
sort of indicate there are a large number of glaciers that are
retreating. But you point out that in Norway most of the
glaciers are advancing and advancing. Can you elaborate on
that? Do you have any data to describe the rate of advancement
of glaciers in Norway?
Dr. Akasofu. I think that most people think that when the
NAO, North Atlantic oscillation, they tend to have more snow in
the Norway area, so that's maybe the cause.
Senator Sununu. You also note that permafrost temperatures
decreased until about 1970. How good is the data for showing
that decrease, and how far back can we go before we lose
accurate data?
Dr. Akasofu. This is permafrost temperature changes in
Fairbanks and it's very similar in Barrow as well. You can see
that the temperature decreased quite a bit until about 1970
when it started to increase, so this is a period that, again,
we were worrying about that all the permafrost is thawing. But
now that trend seems to kind of slow. During this period,
carbon dioxide is increasing so why this change in--we can't
correlate too well with CO2. But nevertheless this
is a similar trend also in Siberia and other places similar
change.
Senator Sununu. Dr. Karl, one of the things that Dr.
Akasofu described in his testimony is the computer technology
of the modeling. We are fortunate to be in the age that the
models and computers are constantly improving. He notes that
existing models can't reproduce seasonal changes accurately and
that the observations show the maximum shrinkage of the Arctic
ice in the summer, well, computer simulations indicate that it
ought to be in the winter.
Do you agree with those statements, or would you add
anything?
Dr. Karl. First off, I would like to add a few things. I
just wanted to mention--perhaps the Senator might be
interested--I do have a graph of the North Atlantic oscillation
and the Arctic oscillation.
Senator Sununu. Yes, if you could include that with your
testimony, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Karl. Clearly climate models are by no means perfect.
They are, however, the best tool to understand what we might
expect in the future. There are many flaws in models and people
have written books about the flaws in the models. However, by
and large, if we take a look at how we would evaluate them,
what we've been able to do is go back in terms of looking at
the past climate records and use the models to see if we could
understand whether our understanding would be able to reproduce
the gross features of past climate.
In general, I think they have done a reasonably good job.
When you begin to look at details, that's when they begin to
fall apart. I would agree there are still many improvements
that need to be made and seasonal cycle is one issue, being
able to reproduce the diurnal cycle is another issue. The list
goes on.
Senator Sununu. Final question, you mentioned clouds. Is it
a matter of determining the tradeoff between their blanketing
effect and their reflectivity?
Dr. Karl. Yes. It's a matter of high clouds versus low
clouds, reflectivity. We're struggling even to understand how
clouds have changed based on the observed record with our
satellites. So even if you were to give me a model that you
believed perfect and you asked me to compare it with
observations, I would have a hard time telling you which I
believed, the model or the observations.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you. I think that all of us
appreciate your taking the time, each of you doctors, to come
and share your knowledge and interpretations with us. It may be
necessary for us to pursue this further next year when we get
the legislative efforts for sort of long-term legislation to
deal with the phenomena we're looking at now. I really would
appreciate your help, Dr. Karl, if you'd tell us what you think
we really need along the coastline to get some of this data
that's missing now.
Dr. Akasofu, I know you know we're putting some effort into
Barrow and effort into the university there. We would like to
have your guidance as to what you also think you would need to
further your studies, Arctic Institute studies of these
changes. Give us some indication of where you think this is
going.
The information that our trees are growing further up
north, that there is less density to the permafrost on shore
seems to be a phenomena that's not exclusively along the coast.
We don't know if we're going to have some changes on the land
mass of the Arctic of Alaska that need attention in the
foreseeable future.
Dr. Akasofu. We work with National Weather Service and
NOAA, so we're happy to work with Dr. Karl.
Chairman Stevens. This would be nice to have that
cooperation between your people in the Arctic Institute that
you head and NOAA, so we can get some guidance with regard to
what else is going to happen in Alaska. The coastal storms, the
coastal damage erosion is one that seems to be the most
predicted right now, although I think that the timeframe is
longer than we thought it was for the change. I think we have
more time to work on it than was apparent.
If it's true that there are some 200 villages that are
ultimately going to be affected along the coastline and along
the rivers, I think we have to have a long-term plan to see
what we can do and maybe bring about some relocation of the
villages far before the crisis period arrives because it's more
expensive to move over a crisis than it is in the long term.
COMMITTEE RECESS
But I do thank you very much for coming to help us
understand the problem further. We're going to recess this
hearing and start again tomorrow morning at 8:30. Tomorrow
we're going to listen to the Alaska villagers, tribal
organizations, and we also have one witness who has some
commercial expertise in erosion prevention and mitigation that
may be of interest to you, also. So we do thank all the
witnesses this morning, and we will recess until 8:30 tomorrow
morning.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., Tuesday, June 29, the committee
was recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 30.]
ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE EROSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Anchorage, AK.
The committee met at 8:40 a.m., in the Z.J. Loussac Public
Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Ted
Stevens (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Stevens and Burns.
Also present: Senators Murkowski and Sununu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Chairman Stevens. I'd like to call Representative Joule,
Mr. Ahmaogak, Ms. Bullard and Mr. Naneng to the table, please.
We welcome you all to the second day of these hearings.
Yesterday was a very successful day for us. We learned a great
deal from the scientific and government people who were here.
We were pleased to hear that HUD has a plan now to allow
the leveraging of $100 million to start the process of dealing
with some of these areas that are threatened by erosion, and we
will follow through with them when we get back to Washington.
This is a United States Senate Appropriations field
hearing. Senate Murkowski and I thank our colleagues, Conrad
Burns and John Sununu, for joining us, and I thank the
witnesses who have traveled here from very many remote
locations to present testimony today.
There are three panels of witnesses this morning. Each
panel will have multiple witnesses, and to keep the hearing on
schedule I request, again, as we did yesterday, that the
witnesses not speak for more than 8 minutes. Senators will hold
their questions until all the panel has testified, and then we
will ask questions and stay within the allotted time for each
panel.
The first panel is allowed 1 hour; the second panel, 1
hour; and the third panel 1 hour and 15 minutes. We have
witnesses from Alaska's community organizations and regional
and State elected officials, as well as one witness who has
expertise in erosion prevention and mitigation.
These 2 days of field hearings are a result of an
appropriations field hearing held in Fairbanks in May 2001 on
the impacts of climate change in the Arctic and the
congressional directed General Accounting Office report to
study Alaska Native villages affected by severe erosion and
flooding to determine what Federal and State programs may be
able to provide assistance.
It's critical to hear from people who have witnessed the
flooding and erosion to understand the magnitude and severity
of how the villages have been impacted and changed in many ways
forever the Alaska coastline and ecosystems.
Senator Burns is a member of the Appropriations Committee.
We'll call on him first.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday was a
very fruitful day. I have no formal statement. I look forward
to hearing from the witnesses.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too
appreciate the hearings and gained a lot from what we heard
yesterday. While I don't serve on the Appropriations Committee,
I do serve on three committees that do have certainly an
interest in what is going on here this morning and yesterday. I
serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee. We've got
oversight of natural hazards and flood control issues. Also on
the Indian Affairs Committee and Energy, which does have
certain ties here today.
I won't be able to stay with you for the full morning. I am
convening a summit on domestic violence at 10 a.m. this
morning, but my chief of staff will be here throughout the
morning and will be listening and reporting back to me as to
the comments that we hear this morning.
I would like to offer just a couple brief observations on
what we gathered yesterday. In my opinion the Congress and the
State need to be focused on two very distinct issues. The first
is how we protect our communities from the flood and storms
while they remain in their locations, and the second component
is how do we find the resources to move these communities if
relocation is the route to go for a long-term solution.
I would ask those that will be presenting this morning--I'm
very interested in your experiences that each of you have had
in your communities working with the Corps of Engineers as well
as the other Federal agencies that are involved. Are they
engaged in your problems? Do they understand? Are they helping
in the level and in the manner in which you really need? And if
not, what can they do--what can we do to improve this?
And I would look forward to hearing your perspectives from
that angle.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate again the opportunity to join
you this morning, and I'm so very pleased that we could have
our colleagues from Montana and New Hampshire join us as well.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Sununu, do you have a statement
this morning?
Senator Sununu. I'd simply like to thank the witnesses for
travelling to be here. The testimony yesterday was outstanding
and I don't think we could possibly develop the depth of
understanding for a problem like this without this kind of
thorough hearing. So it's extremely helpful and I look forward
to today's testimony.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. On our first panel
is Representative Reggie Joule. Representative Joule represents
District 40 in the Alaska Legislature.
Good morning, Representative. I would, again, ask that all
witnesses hold their statements to 8 minutes. We're pleased to
hear from you.
STATEMENT OF HON. REGGIE JOULE, ALASKA STATE
REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. Joule. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Senator
Murkowski, welcome home. Senator Burns and Senator Sununu,
welcome to Alaska.
My name is Reggie Joule, for the record. I am from the
community of Kotzebue, Alaska, located just 30 miles north of
the Arctic Circle where this time of the year the Sun does not
set. I represent House District 40, which stretches from the
Canadian border in the north, encompasses all of the North
Slope and down to the Kotzebue area, the Northwest Arctic
Borough, and over to Shishmaref, almost from the Canadian
border to the Russian border, 19 communities in my district in
an area of about 120,000 square miles.
In Alaska we are bound on three sides by coast, over 6,000
miles of coastline. This accounts for more than half of the
entire U.S. coastline. We also have 12,000 rivers, 3 of the 10
largest in the country; the Yukon, the Kuskokwin and the
Copper. While we are the largest in the United States in mass,
we're, I think, way down second to the last in terms of number
of people. We have just over 600,000 people, of which 19
percent or approximately 120,000 are Alaska's Native people.
Many of Alaska Native people live in remote villages and have
been there for generations.
Most of our villages are located along the coastline or our
river systems and we have located to those places because of
the resources that are there, food resources. And today and for
a few years now erosion is threatening many of our homes. As
you heard yesterday, 184 communities are impacted either by
coastline erosion or flooding. While many of the problems with
erosion and flooding are longstanding, various studies indicate
that coastal villages are becoming more susceptible to flooding
and erosion due, in part, to our changing temperatures.
The Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks has compiled some
interesting data on mean annual temperature trends in Alaska
for the 1971 to 2000 time period as indicated by some of the
data below. In Barrow, for instance, annual temperatures
increased 4.16 degrees with spring temperatures increasing 6.97
degrees. Kotzebue: Annual temperatures increased 1.68 degrees
with spring temperatures increasing 3.56 degrees. And in
Bethel, annual temperatures increased 3.08 degrees while spring
temperatures increased a whopping 7.64 degrees.
Additionally, a 1999 report for the U.S. Global Change
Research Program found that the extent and thickness of sea ice
in the Arctic has decreased substantially with thickness
decreasing by more than 4 feet or approximately 40 percent.
Thickness at one point was at 10 feet; today it's measured at 6
feet, and that is kind of an add-on to some of what you heard
yesterday.
Let's talk about some things at the State level first.
Currently, there are no specific State programs or funding for
erosion management. The three main departments in the State of
Alaska that help assist with erosion and flooding on an
emergency basis are the Department of Transportation (DOT), the
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), and
the Office of Emergency Management (OEM). The State currently
only has one staff member in DCED to work on floodplain erosion
management and this position is largely funded by the Federal
Government through the FEMA program. Generally speaking, the
State departments don't have the authority to focus on
prevention of problems, but rather deal with situations when it
is an emergency and life or property is threatened.
There is no State program to fund mitigation projects
outside of a federally-declared disaster or in special
instances if the State were to make special appropriations. The
Office of Emergency Management intervenes only when there's
``an occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe
damage, injury, loss of life or property, shortage of food or
fuel from an incident.''
A State or Federal disaster declaration must be issued
before the OEM can assist. Similarly, the other departments
intervene only when disaster strikes.
The only available funding for erosion problems has been as
a supplemental request when an emergency arises. Oftentimes,
like in the case of Shishmaref, it's taken some time to be able
to get some of that funding. The Alaska State Legislature has
begun to recognize the issues, but this recognition has been
long in coming. This year the State legislature passed Senate
Joint Resolution 25, a resolution which recognized Alaska's
erosion problems and requested the Federal Government to ease
some of its requirements for the funding. Unfortunately,
recognition has come at a time when the State is struggling
financially, so there aren't the financial resources available
that we would like to have to address some of these issues.
Let's talk about some of the possible solutions, first at
the State level, and then we'll move on to the Federal level.
Possible solutions to expand the role of the Denali Commission
or a State department, such as DCED, to include managing a
flood and erosion assistance program and fund and staff the
entity appropriately so that it can begin to tackle the
problem. The designated agent should be an entity that already
has a positive relationship with rural Alaska and an alliance
with the construction industry. The agent can work to ensure
that by hiring reputable and experienced engineers,
hydrologists, and other professionals erosion abatement money
is maximized.
Designate the same entity to coordinate the erosion issue
between the State and Federal government.
Adopt a statewide erosion plan, which includes an
assessment of the villages.
Adopt State policies about building infrastructure in
threatened areas or a policy covering structural erosion
control projects. Develop a planning process so capital
facilities are built outside of erosion and flooding zones or
are built so that they can be moved at a later date. Policies
should also be adopted regarding relocation of villages that
include site selection criteria that ensures a village will not
have to be relocated for a long period of time. We don't need
to be going through this over and over.
Adopt State legislation on flood/erosion plan management,
if needed.
Provide designated funding for erosion management.
Educate both State and Federal officials about the erosion
and flooding problems and how best to combat erosion abatement.
When working through all of the ideas outlined above, rural
Alaskans should be included in the process. Additionally, if
communities are relocated, the residents should be allowed to
maintain their connection to the area.
Chairman Stevens. The time?
Mr. Joule. Yes. The cost-benefit analysis: Federal agencies
aren't allowed to undertake projects whose costs exceed
expected benefits. So you heard some about this yesterday.
But in closing, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
direct the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NCRS) to include social and environmental
factors in their cost-benefit analysis for requested projects,
and to consider the economic impact of lost subsistence
resources.
Direct the Corps and NCRS to account for the higher cost of
construction and fuel.
And, Mr. Chairman, the rest of this is on my written
statement for your review. I just would like to say that remote
Alaska villages face challenges found nowhere else, and these
obstacles range from harsh climates, the permafrost issues,
limited infrastructure. And we urge this committee to consider
action and help many of the villages in the State. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. There's no question
that your district has substantial problems right now, and
we'll work with you, the State legislature in January. We will
have some suggestions for the legislature too.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Reggie Joule
Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in this
important hearing today. My name is Representative Reggie Joule and I
represent House District 40. I represent a unique area of the state. My
district stretches from the Canadian to the Russian Border. It is an
area rich in natural resources (Prudhoe Bay and Red Dog Mine). It is
also an area that has been inhabited by the Inupiat for thousand of
years. Today I am here to talk with you about erosion and flooding in
our remote area of the state.
Introduction and Background
First, one must ask why Alaska as a state is having such a problem
with erosion and flooding. In part, it is because as the largest state
we have an enormous coastline and river system.
--Alaska encompasses 365 million acres, more than the combined area
of the next 3 largest states (Texas, California and Montana).
--Our state is bound on three sides by water and has a coastline of
6,600 miles.
--Our coastline accounts for more then half of the entire U.S.
Coastline.
--Alaska also has more then 12,000 rivers, including three of the ten
largest in the country (Yukon, Kuskokwim and Copper Rivers).
--Although the largest state, Alaska is the second least populated
state with only 630,000 people of which 19 percent or about
120,000 are Alaska Natives.
--Many Alaska Natives live in remote villages that have been
inhabited by the same families for generations. Most of these
villages are located along a coastline or river system so that
Native people can utilize the food resources. Today erosion
threatens many of our homes.
In fact, flooding and erosion impacts 184 out of 213 Alaska Native
villages or about 86 percent of the villages. (Number of villages
impacted may be higher but quantifiable data for remote villages is
unavailable). Between 1972 and 1991, the state spent over $40 million
for erosion control statewide.
What are the potential causes of the erosion and flooding and why has
it worsened in recent years?
While many of the problems with erosion and flooding are long-
standing, various studies indicate that coastal villages are becoming
more susceptible to flooding and erosion due, in part, to rising
temperatures. The Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks has compiled some
interesting data on mean annual temperature trends in Alaska for the
1971 to 2000 time period as indicated by the data below:
--Barrow: Annual temperature increased 4.16 degrees with spring
temperatures increasing 6.97 degrees.
--Kotzebue: Annual temperatures increased 1.68 degrees with spring
temperatures increasing 3.56 degrees.
--Bethel: Annual temperatures increased 3.08 degrees with spring
temperatures increasing a whopping 7.64 degrees!
Additionally, a 1999 report for the U.S. Global Change Research
Program found that the extent and thickness of sea ice in the Arctic
has decreased substantially with thickness decreasing by more then 4
feet (from 10 feet to 6 feet thick).
Rising temperatures cause protective shore ice to form later in the
year leaving villages vulnerable to fall storms because the shore ice
that would normally protect the shore from the crashing waves isn't
there. Moreover, with less ice, storm surges have become more sever
because large, open water areas generate larger and more destructive
waves. This has resulted in more serious erosion in recent years with
over 100 feet of land being lost in a single storm. A village in my
district called Shishmaref, which is only 1,320 feet wide, lost 125
feet of beach to erosion in a single storm in October 1977.
In recent years rising temperatures have also resulted in
widespread thawing of the permafrost, causing serious damage. Melting
and thawing permafrost is also more sensitive to small variations in
temperatures. (1997 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change). As permafrost melts buildings, bulk fuel tank farms, and
runways sink. Additionally, river villages are impacted by erosion and
flooding caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, heavy rainfall and
rising sea levels all of which have been exacerbated by rising
temperatures and melting permafrost.
Gaining perspective by taking a closer look at some specific villages
and the erosion and flooding problems they face
I would like to familiarize you with this topic by taking a look at
some of the villages in my district. I represent 19 villages, 16 of
which are impacted by erosion and flooding. The villages impacted by
coastal erosion are Barrow, Kaktovik, Point Hope, Point Lay,
Wainwright, Kivalina, Kotzebue, Deering and Shishmaref. The villages
impacted by river erosion and flooding are Nuiqsut, Ambler, Buckland,
Kiana, Kobuk, Noatak, Noorvik, and Selawik.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that many rural villages do not have a naturally occurring
gravel source to build a seawall or other protective system. This means
the gravel for a project must be barged in to an area from the nearest
source, which can be a significant distance. This of course adds a
significant cost to the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the district I represent two villages, Shishmaref and Kivalina,
are in imminent danger of flooding. These two villages are planning to
relocate entirely.
Shishmaref
Shishmaref is a small village of about 562 people. It lies on a
barrier island in the Chukchi Sea and experiences chronic erosion along
the shorelines. The island is no wider then a quarter of a mile. Since
the 1970s the community has tried a variety of erosion protection
measures, from sandbags and gabion seawalls to a concrete block mat.
Ultimately, all of the attempts failed to prevent long-term erosion. To
date 19 homes have been moved to prevent them from literally falling
into the sea. The community is currently working on constructing a
temporary seawall, which is expected to last 10 to 15 years, to give
the village time to relocate. Money for the seawall is coming from
several sources including the State of Alaska, the Corps of Engineers
(Corps), Kawarek Corporation, and other federal monies. The village is
currently working with Natural Resource Conservation Services (NCRS) on
selecting an appropriate site to build a new village.
Kivalina
Kivalina is a small village of about 377 people. It also lies on a
barrier island that is surrounded by the Chukchi Sea and Kivalina
Lagoon. The village is shrinking from chronic erosion on both
shorelines. There is no further room for expansion and the only option
for the village is to relocate. It is believed that the right
combination of storms could flood the entire village at any time,
resulting in the loss of property and life. Cost estimates to relocate
the village range from $100 million to $400 million. The village is
working with the Corps on finding possible new sites as the first two
site selections for a new village failed to meet certain criteria.
Other villages in my area are conducting flooding and erosion
studies or are improving infrastructure to cope with flooding and
erosion problems. Below is a sampling of the villages and the issues
they face:
Kaktovik
The village of Kaktovik is located on Barter Island at the northern
edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The village has a problem
with the runway, which floods every fall, shutting the airport down for
several days at a time. When evaluating the situation it is important
to note that for many remote communities the only real access to urban
facilities, including hospitals, is by air. A flood study at the
airport has been conducted. The village, with the assistance of the
FAA, is now exploring whether it is cheaper to fix the existing airport
or to build a new runway in a different location that won't flood. The
FAA will support the least-cost alternative and will fund 93.75 percent
of the project with the local government covering the rest of the cost.
Kotzebue
Kotzebue is a second-class city with a population of about 3,082
and serves as the urban center for all of the villages in the Northwest
region. The city is located on a spit surrounded by the Chukchi Sea and
Kotzebue Sound. In recent years, former Governor Knowles declared the
road along the beachfront (Shore Avenue) area a disaster due to washout
caused by severe fall storms. This summer the community will rebuild
the road infrastructure with the assistance of the Department of
Emergency Services. In 2006, the city will work with the Department of
Transportation to prevent further erosion by building a seawall along
the shoreline in front of the city.
Barrow
Barrow is a first-class city with a population over 4,000. The city
is located on the Chukchi Sea and serves as the urban center for all of
the villages in the North Slope Borough. It is estimated that
approximately $500 million of Barrow's infrastructure is located in the
flood plain. Barrow, in conjunction with the Corps, has a study
underway for coping with beachfront erosion that threatens the
village's multi-million dollar utility corridor and local landfill. In
the past, the city has used sandbags and dredging to rebuild the
beachfront and to prevent erosion with little success. North Slope
Borough officials estimate that each time there is a flood it costs the
community approximately $500,000.
Point Hope
Point Hope is located near the end of a triangular spit, which juts
15 miles into the Chukchi Sea. This peninsula is one of the longest
continually inhabited areas in Northwest America. Some of the earliest
residents came to the peninsula some 2,000 years ago after crossing the
Siberian land bridge. Today some 800 people call Point Hope home. Due
to concerns about erosion and flooding, Point Hope is researching
alternatives for an emergency evacuation road and relocating the
runway.
Noatak
Noatak is located on the west bank of the Noatak River, 55 miles
north of Kotzebue. It is about 60 feet above sea level. Approximately
400 people, mostly of Inupiaq Eskimo descent, call this small community
home. Due to flooding the community of Noatak had to move graves and
build a new graveyard. The project is still not complete, as a road to
the new gravesite remains unfinished. The changing course of the river
and riverbank erosion has also forced about half of the residents to
relocate or move their existing homes. The residents have done most of
the work on their own with little to no assistance from the state.
Noorvik
Noorvik is also a river community. It is located on the bank of the
Nazuruk Channel on the Kobuk River. Approximately 550 people call
Noorvik home. Noorvik also had to relocate its airport due to flooding.
As you can see from these examples, the erosion and flooding
problem is very real and costly in Alaska. We need help.
What state programs are available to assist villages with erosion and
flooding and why aren't they working?
There is no specific state program or funding for erosion
management. The three main departments that help assist with erosion
and flooding on an emergency basis are the Department of
Transportation, Department of Community and Economic Development
(DCED), and the Office of Emergency Management. The state has only one
staff member in DCED to work on flood plain erosion management and this
position is largely funded by the federal government (75 percent)
through the FEMA program. Generally speaking, the state departments
don't have the authority to focus on prevention of problems but rather
deal with the situation when it is an emergency and life or property is
threatened. There is no state program to fund mitigation projects,
outside of a federally-declared disaster. The Office of Emergency
Management intervenes only when there is ``an occurrence or imminent
threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, loss of life or
property, shortage of food, or fuel from an incident.'' See A.S. 26.23.
A state or federal disaster declaration must be issued before the OEM
can assist. Similarly, the other departments intervene only when
disaster strikes.
The only available funding for erosion problems has been as a
supplemental request when an emergency arises. Oftentimes, like in the
case of Shishmaref, it has taken years to get funding. Shishmaref began
asking for money to build a seawall around 1984. During the intervening
years it did receive sporadic funding ($1.7 million) and built a
partial seawall that failed. Finally this year Shishmaref received some
state funding to build a partial seawall, which will help protect the
village for another 10 to 15 years while it relocates. There is no
statewide erosion policy or plan on how to tackle the problem. There is
no state policy about building infrastructure in threatened areas or a
policy covering structural erosion control projects. Therefore, there
is no planning process to insure that capital facilities are built
outside of erosion and flooding zones or built so that they can be
moved at a later date. In fact, there is no state legislation on flood/
erosion plain management at all. There is no state or federal agency
designated or funded to coordinate erosion control between the state
and federal governments. In sum, there is a real lack of state
resources to address erosion problems.
The Alaska State Legislature has begun to recognize the issues but
this recognition has been long in coming. This year the legislature
passed SJR 25, a resolution which recognized Alaska's erosion problems
and requested the federal government to ease some of its requirements
for funding. Unfortunately, recognition has come at a time when the
state is struggling financially, so there aren't the financial
resources available that we would like to have to address the problems.
Additionally, there are a number of legislators who favor funding
projects in urban areas of the state where most of the population
resides. There are also a few legislators who believe that no money
should be spent in rural areas and that threatened village residents
should simply move to the city.
What are some possible solutions to the erosion problem on the state
level?
Listed below are some possible solutions to Alaska's erosion and
flooding problem:
--Expand the role of the Denali Commission or a state department to
include managing a flood and erosion assistance program and
fund and staff the entity appropriately so that it can begin to
tackle the problem. The designated agent should be an entity
that already has a positive relationship with rural Alaska and
an alliance with the construction industry. The agent can work
to ensure that by hiring reputable and experienced engineers,
hydrologists, and other professionals erosion abatement money
is maximized.
--Designate the same entity to coordinate the erosion issue between
the state and federal government.
--Adopt a statewide erosion plan, which includes an assessment of the
villages.
--Adopt state policies about building infrastructure in threatened
areas or a policy covering structural erosion control projects.
Develop a planning process so capital facilities are built
outside of erosion and flooding zones or are built so that they
can be moved at a later date. Policies should also be adopted
regarding relocation of villages that include site selection
criteria that ensures a village will not have to be relocated
in the foreseeable future.
--Adopt state legislation on flood/erosion plain management if
needed.
--Provide designated funding for erosion management.
--Educate both state and federal officials about the erosion and
flooding problems and how best to combat erosion abatement.
--When working through all of the ideas outlined above rural Alaskans
should be included in the process. Additionally, if communities
are relocated the residents should be allowed to maintain their
connection to the area.
Adoption of any of these measures would be a step in the right
direction.
What federal programs are available to assist villages with erosion and
flooding and why aren't they working?
The principal federal programs that prevent and control erosion and
flooding are administered by the Corps of Engineers (Continuing
Authorities Program) and the Natural Resource Conservation Services
(Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention). The problem with these
programs is that the villages usually fail to qualify for federal
assistance because they can't meet the federal requirements listed
below:
--Cost Benefit Analysis.--Federal agencies aren't allowed to
undertake projects whose costs exceed expected benefits. This
requirement fails to account for social or environmental
factors, or the economic or cultural value of subsistence. Only
one NCRS program, the Emergency Watershed Protection program,
accounts for these factors. Additionally, there is no
adjustment to account for the high cost of construction and
fuel in remote areas. Most villages fail to meet this
requirement.
--Match Requirement.--The match requirement requires local
communities to fund between 25 to 50 percent of the project. A
few programs will waive this requirement. Some of the poorest
communities in the state are being asked to contribute
thousands of dollars in match money, a requirement they simply
can't meet.
How can we solve the funding issue and get the needed resources to our
villages?
Listed below are some possible funding solutions to Alaska's
erosion and flooding problems:
--Direct the Corps and the NCRS to include social and environmental
factors in their cost/benefit analysis for requested projects,
and to consider the economic impact of lost subsistence
resources. An additional consideration might also be whether a
cultural heritage site or a national historic landmark is at
risk. (Point Hope is recognized as a nationally significant
cultural site as is Barrow and many other villages);
--Direct the Corps and NCRS to account for the higher cost of
construction and fuel in Alaska in the cost/benefit analysis;
--Waive the federal cost share requirements for flooding and erosion
projects in Alaska;
or
--Fund the Denali Commission with specific provisions that the funds
can be used by the communities to meet the required cost share
provisions;
--Authorize the bundling of funds from various agencies to respond to
flooding and erosion;
--Earmark some of the federal income from the state for oil, timber
or other natural resources revenues to fund erosion and
flooding projects in Alaska; and
--Expand the role of the Denali Commission to include managing a
flood and erosion assistance program.
Remote Alaska villages face challenges found nowhere else in the
United States. These obstacles range from harsh climates, ice-rich
permafrost soils, limited infrastructure, high fuel and shipping
prices, short construction seasons, and limited or no access to
transportation networks. The proposed changes outlined above would give
federal agencies more flexibility and would allow them to address
Alaska's unique rural flooding and erosion challenges. I urge you to
seriously consider these changes and help Alaska begin to tackle
erosion and flooding.
Thank you for your time.
Chairman Stevens. Good morning, Mayor. It's nice to see
you. Appreciate you coming down to be with us from Barrow. Can
we have your testimony?
STATEMENT OF GEORGE AHMAOGAK, SR., MAYOR, NORTH SLOPE
BOROUGH, BARROW, ALASKA
Mr. Ahmaogak. My name is Mayor George Ahmaogak. I'm now
serving my fifth term in office. Each term is 3 years. You can
see I've went through a lot of storm-related situations in my
time.
I represent the North Slope Borough. The North Slope
Borough is the regional government for northern Alaska charged
with responding to storm-related emergencies and planning for
erosion control. Five of our villages are coastal and have
significant erosion problems. Sandy soils, low elevation, and
permafrost make erosion a fact of life in Arctic Alaska. Unlike
most soils, exposed permafrost warms and melts then slumps and
washes away. Instead of helping to rebuild beaches, erosion
material on our shores just disappears.
A strong warming trend has led to multiple shrinking of the
Arctic Ocean ice and has made our subsistence way more
difficult from my personal observation. Gravel was scraped from
Barrow's beaches in 1940 for the construction of the Naval
Arctic Research Lab. The same approach was used for the
construction of the State of Alaska airport runway for the Will
Rogers Airport in Barrow. This loss of beach material
accelerated erosion along the shore.
Storms have the greatest impact on erosion in our coastal
villages. Storms in 1954, 1963, and 1986 caused extensive
flooding and carried away large chunks of our coastline. The
1986 storm resulted in the State of Alaska disaster declaration
for all of our coastal communities. Federal and State private
studies of coastal erosion in our region have documented the
problems for 50 years or more. Estimates of the annual loss of
soils from coastal areas suggest that we're losing an average
of about 4 feet of coastline per year.
The airport runways at the coastal villages of Kaktovik
near the Canadian border and Point Hope to the west of Barrow
flood each and every year cutting these communities off from
any transportation link to the outside world.
Our whaling culture is tied to the sea and our coastal
villages are in traditional locations for access to subsistence
activities. Erosion is a constant challenge for us. We welcome
your interest in this problem, and we look forward to Federal
participation in finding solutions. I also want to mention the
fact that the North Slope Borough as part of the solution has
supported the effort in creating the Barrow Global Climate
Change Research Facility. I'm sure you've seen my letters time
and time over, the letter-writing campaign, supporting the need
for this research facility to start now getting the baseline
data of the climate changes taking place. We still
wholeheartedly support that. My understanding is now that we're
in a planning stage of this facility.
We are in extreme need of getting that baseline data to
find out what exactly in scientific terms is going on with the
global changes that are taking place. If I had a message to you
this morning, I would accelerate my interest in that facility
and you make it a reality. I think science is one method and
baseline data is what we need to find out what the problem is.
Barrow is going to be the host of this research facility. So we
need your support in that effort to make this a reality.
I had a question on the Corps of Engineers--in our
experience with the Corps of Engineers. As you know, we have
other coastal villages that are subject to the flooding. Barrow
is one of the worst ones. We have a memorandum of understanding
with the Corps of Engineers to deal with our erosion problem
and that other local government at this stage will pay 50
percent of the local costs--of the overall costs in restoration
and engineering and construction mitigation of any flooding to
take place.
Unfortunately, ironically, the other villages that are
subject to erosion as well, we can't convince the Corps of
Engineers to meet their criteria to be able to be accepted just
like Barrow is. Our municipality is very interested in trying
to do that. We have been trying to overcome that problem of
getting those other villages recognized by the Corps of
Engineers so they can have a mitigation plan, a design plan and
a construction plan for the coastal erosion that takes place.
Barrow is the only one that we've worked so hard to be able
to make it a reality. So we have a memorandum of understanding
with the Corps of Engineers just for Barrow. The other three
outlying villages need the Army Corps of Engineers. If there
are any solutions to be had, I would suggest that any
assistance you can offer to try to convince the Corps of
Engineers to include those three other villages. We're willing
and able to try and work with them. It's like working with a
brick wall and the bureaucratic process you have to do to
qualify some of these villages is astronomical.
I just wanted to mention that we do have an MOA just for
Barrow and we're willing to pay capital costs. We're fortunate
enough to have the resources in local funds to be able to pay
the 50 percent share of the capital costs. I feel also--what
about the other rural Alaskans, which they don't have financial
resources to even come up with their 50 percent share of the
costs. You know yourself that rural Alaska is in a real
critical financial situation out there. They will never have
the financial resources to be able to address those needs.
I feel for those guys that are having the same problems we
are but have no financial resources. I want to talk about
disaster declarations at the local level when we do have storms
that are like we had in 1986. We made emergency declarations at
the local level. It's a tedious process. Once you make a
declaration, then you have to get the State of Alaska to also
agree with your declaration and the Federal level.
The responsibility and burden of proof is laid on the local
communities to make that disaster declaration and the damage
assessments that need to be done so they can get it termed as a
disaster. We're going through this tedious process of meeting
those requirements. Fortunately, the borough has been able to
do that. At times when we declared a disaster, we couldn't get
the State of Alaska to agree with us. Now it's the local
communities that bear the costs for these disasters.
You can't convince the State, you can't convince the
Federal agencies and FEMA. I think if there was suggestions and
solutions to this all, there needs to be improvement on the
declaration process and when these coastal villages declare
declaration, they need help now. You have to understand, they
have no telephone when they have a disaster, no communication.
We're fortunate in the North Slope Borough to have the
resources. When we declare a declaration, we can call out, then
do the damage assessment with our staff and try to convince the
State and then try to convince the Federal process and the FEMA
process. That's an extreme awful difficult process. If there's
any suggestions or solutions to be had, once a local community
declares a declaration, they need help and that means
improvement, at least for now when they declare disaster
declaration.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify here. I'll stay
within my 8 minutes. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you, Mayor. Nice to have you here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of George N. Ahmaogak, Sr.
Thank you for this opportunity to share information and local
perspectives on erosion in the northernmost coastal communities of
Alaska. These problems have become severe in recent decades and give
every indication of worsening in the future.
Background
The North Slope Borough is the regional government for the entire
area north of the Brooks Range. Our municipal powers make us the entity
charged with responding to storm-related emergencies, addressing near-
term erosion issues, and planning a coordinated response to the long-
term effects of erosion in all of our communities.
The North Slope Borough has several thousand miles of coastline
within its borders and thousands of miles of rivers. Our people reside
in eight villages, all of which have historic ties to our Inupiat
Eskimo ancestors. Five of the eight communities--Kaktovik, Barrow,
Wainwright, Point Lay and Point Hope--are located along the coast. Two
others--Nuiqsut and Atqasuk--are situated on rivers and experience some
of the same problems, though to a much lesser degree.
Our prevailing sandy soils, low elevations and permafrost probably
guarantee a certain amount of erosion as a fact of life on the Arctic
coastal plain. Our average tidal change is only around a foot, but wave
action during storms can create ocean surges of ten feet or more. Since
much of the region is just a few feet above sea level, the effects of
storms can be devastating. A 1963 storm, for example, flooded millions
of acres along the coast.
Our sandy soils and permafrost tend to aggravate storm-related
erosion considerably. The sandy soils are easily eroded, and as their
ice-rich underpinnings are exposed in shoreside bluffs, they simply
melt and wash away instead of replenishing the beach as most soils do.
Human Factors in North Slope Erosion
Human interventions in the past 50 years have aggravated the
natural occurrence of erosion considerably. A strong warming trend in
the Arctic has led to very noticeable declines in the extent of the
Arctic ice pack. Our whaling communities comment on this frequently, as
the retreating ice pack increases the open water area during whaling
season and makes whaling more difficult. A greater expanse of open
water also allows storms to generate more wave action, making them more
damaging when they hit the shore.
Construction activities have also accelerated erosion. When the
Navy built the Naval Arctic Research Lab near Barrow during the 1940s,
gravel was scraped off nearby beaches for use in roads and building
pads. Similarly, gravel was mined from local beaches for the
construction of Barrow's first airport runway. These changes to the
natural slope of the waterfront noticeably increased erosion in
subsequent years.
Storm Damage and Responses in Recent History
Storms in 1954, 1963 and 1986 were the most significant erosion
events in the past half-century. The September 1986 storm did
significant damage to the North Slope. As a result, all the coastal
communities of the North Slope Borough were declared disaster
emergencies by the State of Alaska. This classification resulted in
FEMA and the North Slope Borough developing a Hazard Mitigation Plan.
This plan resulted in repairs to infrastructure in the communities, but
no mitigation of future erosion was possible under the program.
After a pair of storms in September of 1986, the North Slope
Borough hired the firm of Tekmarine from California to inspect the
storm damage and evaluate various protection measures. Tekmarine was a
coastal engineering firm that had been providing erosion protection to
the oil industry at Prudhoe Bay in support of offshore island
construction. The report, completed in 1987, was titled Bluff and
Shoreline Protection Study for Barrow, Alaska. It is relevant to both
Barrow and Wainwright, due to the similarities of coastal conditions at
both communities.
Page 1 of the Tekmarine report includes a statement that reflected
conditions at the time of the storm and has only grown more relevant as
time has passed:
``The coastal erosion at Barrow has been recorded in scientific
literature for at least the past 30 years, but the erosion has become a
serious problem recently as it began to threaten the local community.
In particular, the receding bluff-line has encroached upon the housing
and the streets of Barrow, and it is feared that the spit separating
the sewage and fresh-water lagoons may be breached if the shoreline
erosion is allowed to continue.''
Page 9 of the Tekmarine report reviews some of the documented
history of North Slope coastal erosion. While the comments are specific
to Barrow, these or similar events have occurred at all the coastal
communities within the North Slope Borough over the last 60 years:
``The most devastating single episode of bluff erosion in this
region occurred during the storm of October 3, 1963, described as `the
worst storm in the memory of the Eskimo people' (Hume and Schalk,
1967). The water was open at the time and a storm tide estimated to be
about 12 feet developed. The entire Barrow spit was under water and
more sediment was moved `in a few hours than would normally be
transported in 10 years' (Hume and Schalk, 1967). Just how much of the
bluff retreated as a result of that storm is unknown, although it may
well have been as much as one polygon width, according to Max Brewer,
who was Director of the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory at the time
(Walker, 1985). The debris line investigated by Hume and Schalk (1967)
clearly demonstrates that during the 1963 storm, the sea overtopped the
spit to inundate both the fresh-water and sewage lagoons.
``Prior to 1963, a fall storm in 1954 (Schalk, 1957) was the worst
ever, in which a surge elevation of 9 to 10 feet is reported to have
occurred. A storm accompanying a storm surge of 4 to 6 feet occurred in
September 1986, causing considerable damage to the bluffs at Barrow and
Wainwright (Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team, 1986).''
This historical information is important to the people of the North
Slope because it shows just how severe storm and coastal erosion damage
has been and can be. If the events of the 1986 storm resulted in a
disaster declaration for all of the coastal communities within the
borough, it is not hard to image what would result with a re-occurrence
of either the 1954 or 1963 storm events.
Over the past 30 years, the Anchorage engineering firm of LCMF, LLC
has participated in a number of erosion and mitigation studies for the
North Slope Borough. The following excerpt from one of their reports
provides detail on the extent and nature of storm-related erosion in
the Arctic:
``The rate of [beach] erosion at Barrow has been estimated by
various studies as anywhere from 0.2 feet to 6 feet per year. After
evaluating the results of several studies on the local erosion rate,
the Tekmariner report (1987) settled on a rate of 4 feet per year.
``Storms are the critical factor in both bluff erosion and retreat
of the shoreline. Along the coast, undercutting is caused by the action
of waves, mainly during storm surges. According to MacCarthy (1953),
the undercutting is followed by slumping and landsliding down the face
of the bluff. When ice wedges surrounding tundra polygons are present
within the solids of a bluff, the fracturing of the wedges causes large
parts of the polygons to fall from the bluff as a unit. Ice and water
within the permafrost melt and wet the soil, acting to loosen the
slumping materials when thawed, so that they are quickly mixed into the
sea and beach.'' (LCMF--May 1991, page 4)
The 1986 storm submerged Kaktovik's airport runway on Barter Island
in the eastern reaches of the North Slope Borough. The runway continues
to flood on an annual basis, as outlined in the recent GAO report,
Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages. While the community is
buffered from coastal erosion by the runway, the permafrost bluffs
adjacent to the lagoon and community do not escape erosion problems. In
the early 1980s, a seawall had to be built in conjunction with roadways
along the lagoon to prevent continued erosion from encroaching into the
right-of-way and causing the new roadway to fail.
Another effect of erosion occurred at the DEW line (Distant Early
Warning) station at Barter Island, which is no longer in operation. As
part of its decommissioning, the DEW line landfill was closed by
encapsulation (covered with dirt). Unfortunately this landfill is
adjacent to the coast, and by the year 2000, erosion had caused the
encapsulation to fail.
Erosion is a constant enemy across the North Slope. Materials for
use in mitigation measures are scarce and very expensive. Consequently,
most responses in the past have been sporadic and have met with limited
success. However, two villages have been completely relocated due to
erosion. Point Hope was moved in the early 1970s, but significant loss
of cultural artifacts has continued in the area of the old townsite.
Point Hope is notable as the oldest continually inhabited settlement in
North America. In its current location, access to higher ground is
severely limited. There is one roadway leading from Point Hope towards
higher ground, but a portion of it descends to the northerly edge of
the spit along Marrayatt Inlet where it is also submerged and dangerous
during flooding. The village's runway continues to flood in the fall
every year, as mentioned in the GAO report cited above.
The community of Point Lay was relocated from the coastal barrier
islands to land at the mouth of the Kokolik River in the late 1970s.
However, this move was not sufficient to escape flooding in the area.
Five years later, the community was moved again to its current location
on high ground behind the barrier islands. Even so, coastal erosion
continues to impact access to the community by sea lifts, and community
infrastructure--such as the sewage discharge line--is losing stability
at its discharge point due to erosion in that area.
Conclusion
Low elevations, permafrost and the loss of protection from
shrinking sea ice expanses makes erosion a constant challenge and an
occasional disaster for the people of the North Slope. The range of
mitigation responses is limited and expensive, but our Inupiat whaling
culture is inextricably bound to the sea and our communities are
destined to remain near the water's edge. Our best hope is for a
coordinated effort among agencies at all levels, using the best
engineering experience and technology, and based on careful planning
and respect for the needs of local communities. We appreciate your
concern and we look forward to federal participation in this urgent
problem.
Chairman Stevens. Ms. Bullard.
STATEMENT OF LORETTA BULLARD, PRESIDENT, KAWERAK, INC.
Ms. Bullard. Thank you. Good morning, Senators. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify and welcome to Alaska. My name
is Loretta Bullard and I'm the president of Kawerak, which is a
Native nonprofit corporation and consortium of 20 federally-
recognized tribes in Northwest Alaska. We contract with the
Federal and State governments to provide diverse services
throughout the Bering Straits Region.
I want to state that Kawerak is one of the few
organizations in the Nation that has contracted with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) roads program and using some of our BIA
roads money we have been able to provide assistance to
Shishmaref, which is one of our northern communities that has
severe erosion problems. We are able to use our BIA roads
program dollars to match our Federal money. So while we didn't
use it on a match basis for the situation in Shishmaref, we did
have some discussions with the Corps early on to possibly use
our BIA roads dollars to provide that match.
This is in response to the question by Senator Murkowski
earlier about the Corps. We had discussions with the Corps
about using our roads dollars to match their dollars to go
through the planning and feasibility process so Shishmaref will
be able to have protections in place in their community. We
subsequently decided not to because we spent all of our
matching dollars to go through the planning and feasibility
process. There are photos in this display here showing that we
had taken our BIA dollars and constructed a 450-foot seawall
protection for the town.
We concluded that Shishmaref didn't have the time to go
through a 3 or 5, 6-year feasibility process only to find that
they had a 50 percent match which they couldn't afford versus
if we took our limited money we were able to construct a
seawall to help protect that community. So that's what we did.
We have had discussions with the Corps of Engineers that
they have been redirected to look at their cost-benefit
analysis that they did a number of years ago. They did a cost-
benefit analysis to determine whether Diomede could have a
docking facility. From the initial analysis the conclusion was
the benefit was not there, therefore, they could not have their
needs addressed. We also included photos of Diomede to show
their access problems.
While they're not extremely subject to erosion, they do get
major storms out there and do have flooding. They're not able
to access assistance through the Corps of Engineers because of
the cost-benefit analysis. Diomede is a small community, 150,
160 people, 45 percent children. They simply don't have the
match available to construct a small harbor facility. Because
they don't have a docking facility out there, the only thing
they have is a fuel barge.
Major freight just doesn't get out there unless you put it
on a plane which lands on the sea ice which is there from
January through maybe mid-May. There was a time people
freighted their items on very small boats, 20, 25-foot boats
max. The size is limited. But they're another example of a
community that is not able to meet the Corps' match
requirement, and the Corps has been talking with them about
using the BIA roads dollars. Kawarek is contracting for the
entire region and to match to the Corps' dollars, which, you
know, we could explore doing that, but I would hate to get in
the position of having extremely limited roads dollars that
everyone is hoping to match State funds to get projects in
other villages.
We were able to do the project in Shishmaref, but I would
hate to see us spend every single dollar to match the Corps'
dollars. We concur with many of the recommendations in the
report. I just want to suggest that when you do--we encourage
that a work group be appointed. When Secretary Thompson went to
Shishmaref, the first thing he said was, who's in charge? There
was nobody in charge in terms of a Federal agency.
I kind of think the position the rural villages are faced
with is a huge bureaucracy. To do the applications, manage the
money, folks really need help, and many of our smaller
communities don't have that ability to manage the large
engineering projects. Just coordinating people, I think, is a
huge amount of work.
We also suggest that, you know, the Corps be the lead and
that a work group be established of Federal and State agencies
and rural Alaskans be appointed to serve on that. It also helps
to educate those of us in rural Alaska that have to work these
systems in order to gain assistance. So I would encourage that
to be done.
In closing, we encourage funds to be made available,
appropriated on a basis to help us address these issues. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Loretta. I have read
your statement and we do thank you for the recommendations
you've made and we'll try to follow up. I will have some
conversation later.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Loretta Bullard
Thank you Senator Stevens and members of the committee for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Loretta Bullard. I am
President of Kawerak, Inc. Kawerak is a regional Native non-profit
corporation and consortium of 20 federally recognized tribes in
northwest Alaska. We contract with the federal and state governments to
provide diverse services throughout the Bering Straits region.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to present our needs and
recommendations. We are pleased that Congress is exploring erosion and
flooding concerns in Alaska.
To start, I would like to thank Senator Stevens and this Committee
for directing the GAO to compile their recent report on erosion and
flooding issues in village Alaska. The GAO report explored in detail
the needs of several of our communities (Shishmaref and Unalakleet) and
did a good job in laying out the issues. I find myself supporting just
about every single recommendation in the report. Alaska has over 6,600
miles of coast line. I've attached a map to my testimony that reflects
the sheer size of the State of Alaska in relation to the lower 48.
While our population is small and our communities remote, just about
every single village in the state is located on the ocean or along a
major river where erosion and flooding problems are more likely to
occur.
Kawerak is one of the few tribal organizations nationally--and the
only tribal consortium--which has contracted to perform the entire
Bureau of Indian Affairs ``Indian Reservation Roads'' (IRR) program
under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. IRR
funding, when it is available, is an ideal funding source for village
Alaska because under federal law, it can be used for a local match to
leverage other funding sources, including federal funds. Over the past
year and a half, the Corps of Engineers has explored meeting some of
our villages need for assistance, with the idea that Kawerak would
provide the local match.
Because we are compacting to provide the IRR program in the Bering
Straits Region, we were able to make resources available to Shishmaref
to construct a small sea wall to protect a portion of their roads and
community infrastructure until such time as they relocate--and to fund
a position at Shishmaref to serve as staff support to the Shishmaref
Erosion and Relocation Coalition to aid them in their relocation
planning.
I know what we've been able to do to assist our villages utilizing
our BIA IRR resources--but question what federal agency is taking the
lead in providing assistance to other villages in desperate need of
assistance? Based on our experience, I'd have to conclude there is no
one agency in the lead. Secretary Thompson cut to the chase last summer
during his trip to Shishmaref when he inquired which federal agency was
in charge of helping Shishmaref?--and there was not a definitive
response. The villages are basically placed in the position of trying
to identify and set in place a patchwork of assistance. In my mind--
it's probably akin to herding cats and not a very effective way of
getting things done.
We concur with the recommendation contained in the GAO report that
a federal agency should be appointed to lead a work group consisting of
the various federal and state agencies to work on erosion and flooding
issues in rural Alaska.
We recommend that the responsibility be delegated to a work group
led by the Corps of Engineers, rather then the Denali Commission. It
could perhaps be a work group within the Denali Commission itself. The
Corps has the in-house expertise to handle the issues. It would also
serve to insure decision making is not driven by politics. We recommend
that rural Alaskans be appointed to serve on the work group so that we
are able to channel our issues, concerns, and recommendations and have
them fully considered in the decision making processes. This process
could also serve to help educate rural Alaskans as to potential sources
of assistance and how to access them.
The Denali Commission's latest draft of their Investment policy
states that the Commission will only consider proposals to create new
communities if Congress directs the relocation of an existing
community. I interpret this language to say the Denali Commission does
not want to be the lead in this arena. Rather, they have elected to
defer to Congress to make the decision as to whether a community should
receive assistance to relocate. If this is going to be the process, a
process needs to be set in place to allow for this.
Once the work group is appointed, we recommend that their first
order of business be to gather data so that those communities in
greatest need of assistance, receive the help they need.
In reviewing the list of communities identified in the region as
being impacted by erosion and flooding, I think the list could be
substantially reduced. The sheer number of villages identified as
possibly in need of aid serves to discourage agencies and appropriators
from making resources available to address needs. It's pretty
overwhelming. Where does one start? I encourage the task force to
solicit regional and local involvement in the prioritization of
support. If you were to ask, for example, our Kawerak Board of
Directors to identify what villages in the region had significant
erosion and flooding problems that were in immediate need of
assistance, the answer would not be the list contained in the report.
We recommend that the work group be tasked with developing
recommendations for consideration by Congress and the State of Alaska--
to streamline the planning, application, award and management of funds
and technical assistance to provide coordinated, collaborative, non-
duplicative and timely support.
Federal and State agencies all have different planning,
applications, grant accounting, management, match requirements, fiscal
and programmatic reporting requirements associated with their
assistance. I'm surprised that anything gets done in rural Alaska given
the complexity of the various statutes, regulations, and applications
that small rural communities must successfully navigate and contend
with in order to access assistance from the federal and state
governments. There is a certain population threshold at which
municipalities and boroughs can manage and inter-act effectively with
the federal and state governments on complex engineering projects. Many
villages in Alaska do not meet those thresholds and require assistance
even to know what assistance is available and how to go about accessing
it. I stress assistance in a timely fashion. I understand the Corp
informed Shishmaref in 1953 that it would be cheaper for them to
relocate than to construct a seawall. Well, here we are 51 years
later--and they haven't moved yet! Timeliness is of concern given
agencies reluctance to invest resources in communities that may move at
some remote point in the future.
In reviewing the Table 4 in the GAO report, the List of Federal
Programs That Can Address Problems Caused by Flooding and Erosion, I
was surprised to see that GAO included the BIA Roads Maintenance and
Housing Improvement Programs as possible sources of funds to address
erosion and flooding issues. The Alaska Regional Office budget for the
BIA Roads Maintenance program for the entire state is $300,000. The
entire Alaska Regional Office budget to construct or repair homes is
only $4.1 million. Our region's share of those funds for fiscal year
2004, is only $350,000. With this funding, we are able to construct 3
homes.
We encourage the Corp of Engineers to amend their cost/benefit
analysis process to provide consideration for the protection of and
value of subsistence resources available at that location.
Some of our village sites have been continuously occupied for 4,000
to 6,000 years. The reason we have occupied these sites is that the
sites themselves are very rich in natural resources upon which we
depend. A good example is Little Diomede.
The village of Little Diomede is located on a very small, steep
island about 40 miles off the tip of the Seward Peninsula between
Alaska and Russia. They have a population of about 150 people. Little
Diomede is situated there because of the proximity to subsistence
resources. There are huge migrations of whales and walrus through the
Bering Straits spring and fall. Residents are able to fish and hunt for
seals year around and crab are readily available. Hundreds of thousands
of seabirds nest on the island each spring--eggs and birds are taken
for subsistence purposes. Edible plants grow on the island and are
harvested by villagers. While Diomede is a wonderful location to access
subsistence foods, it's extremely difficult to safely transport people
and goods to and from the community.
Little Diomede does not have an airport, they have a heliport. The
U.S. Postal Service contracts with Evergreen to deliver mail and small
freight, once a week via a helicopter during the ice free months. Mail
has priority on the helicopter, passengers are a secondary concern.
Individuals trying to get to Diomede can sit in Wales for weeks, trying
to get home with limited space available on the helicopter, weather--
and the once a year mechanical inspection of the helicopter. When the
sea ice freezes thick enough and doesn't float away with the current,
(January-February?) residents of Diomede construct an ice runway on the
sea ice. At that point, small computer airlines provide daily service
until the runway floats away (which is usually late April-mid May).
Diomede residents travel back and forth to the mainland during the ice
free months via small 16-22 foot boats. Diomede does not have an
erosion or flooding problem--they have what I consider to be an access
problem.
Because Diomede does not have a docking facility and freight barges
have had to wait for calm weather to offload, barge companies are very
reluctant to barge freight into Diomede. The only barge that now goes
into Diomede on an annual basis is the Crowley fuel barge. I understand
a private individual in Nome occasionally hauls freight to Diomede via
a small landing craft. Last summer, Rural Cap chartered a fishing boat
to bring housing renovation materials to the island. Other then that,
Diomede residents either have to airlift freight in during the time
they have an ice runway, fly it in via the helicopter if the item(s)
will fit in a helicopter--or transport items to the island in their own
personal boats. This can have fatal consequences--as happened in 1998
when a heavily laden boat disappeared between Wales and Little Diomede.
Two boats departed Wales, one boat made it--the other didn't. Six lives
were lost.
Little Diomede could benefit tremendously from a docking facility,
but under earlier analysis by the Corps, they did not qualify under the
cost benefit analysis. Even if they had, given that Diomede has a
population of 150--of which 46 percent are children and a subsistence-
based economy, they would not be able to meet the Corps match
requirements. Unfortunately, our small city governments have little tax
base and do not receive municipal assistance from the State of Alaska.
Our tribal governments do not have taxing authority. Capital
improvements are dependent on outside funding. I understand, thanks to
direction by Senator Stevens' office, that the Corps is re-evaluating
the situation and that language has been incorporated into H.R. 2557
that would address this specific situation. I encourage members of
Congress to support this provision.
I bring Diomede up because this to me is a situation where
exceptions should be made. The Corps funding process needs to provide
assistance in those situations where no other options are available. If
Diomede had a docking facility, they could bring in freight and
passengers at a substantially reduced cost during the ice free months.
We encourage the Corp of Engineers to set up a process whereby
communities can request that the match requirement be waived; to waive
the local match requirement when the local government(s) are unable to
contribute; and provide for an appeal mechanism so that the decision
can be fully considered.
And in closing, we encourage Congress to make funds available so
that these very real needs can be addressed on a phased basis.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Chairman Stevens. Myron, good morning. Myron Naneng is
president of the Association of Village Council Presidents.
We're glad to have your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MYRON P. NANENG, SR., PRESIDENT,
ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS
Mr. Naneng. Good morning, Senator, and good morning to the
distinguished guests who are here to talk about the flooding
and erosion problems within our State. Thanks for coming and
hello. If you were in a group, it would probably translate,
what's up?
I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to
testify before you on some of the problems in the Yukon/
Kuskokwim Delta. My name is Myron Naneng. I'm the president of
the Association of Village Council Presidents. I have a
consortium of 56 villages on the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta. There
are many problems that are occurring in the villages regarding
flooding and erosion.
On an annual basis during springtime on the river system,
the Kuskokwim and Yukon, we used to have floods there because
of ice conditions. Because of the weather changes or climate
changes, we haven't had one major flood within the Lower Yukon
or Kuskokwim since about 1985, but we still do have floods that
affect our villages. That does not stop the erosion that's
still occurring in the villages.
The village of Newtok is one prime example of a village
that needs to relocate to another site because of erosion.
Other villages are also looking at long-term impacts of
erosion. In the village of Hooper Bay last week they had a
meeting regarding the airport. They built that airport back in
1968 when I was still running around not knowing what's on the
horizon. The runway is now starting to get shorter. Every year
they're doing mitigation of the runway. They're starting to
discuss potential sites for a new location away from the beach.
Chairman Stevens. What village?
Mr. Naneng. The village of Hooper Bay. So the DOT and the
community got together, and they've been in discussions with
them since January about a potential new site, but they got
together to get local comments with DOT about a potential site
that would be away from the coast. They talked about potential
mitigation, meaning what can we do to prevent further erosion
of the runway. They went to a lot of effort to try and prevent
that erosion from happening, but it is still occurring.
Villages on the Yukon, especially those on the Lower Yukon
at the mouth of the river, are more subject to erosion due to
the soil conditions. The efforts made by some of the villages
like Alakanak, Emmonak, Kotlik and Nunam Iqua regarding the
erosion of the riverbanks. At Emmonak they put some rock piles
on the riverbanks to prevent that. That's working, however,
there's a site above the village that's slowly moving in to
what was once the community dump site. So as they deal with
what's in front of the village, they're also concerned about
what's going on above the village. So that's one situation that
has to be dealt with by the community and outside entities.
And Kotlik and Nunam Iqua are in the same situation. One of
the things that has happened with many of the villages on the
Yukon and Kuskokwim is new construction of homes and
infrastructure is being moved away from the riverbank, which
has been the life-sustaining and subsistence activity,
sustenance of our people. So they are moving away from the
riverbanks.
On the Kuskokwim erosion is pretty much evident throughout
the river system due to the similar soil and river conditions
that are occurring on the Yukon, just like on the Lower Yukon.
I could say much about Bethel. You have the representative that
will be discussing the Bethel issue. It's really no different
that the rest of the small villages. The coastal villages on
the Bering Sea between the mouth of the Yukon from Kotlik to
Platinum are really no different as far as this erosion and
flooding issue.
I have stated what Hooper Bay is trying to do in terms of
relocating their airport, but the other villages, as many as 10
other villages are affected annually. The flooding occurs
mostly during the fall time when the weather changes, but
flooding causes erosion to occur similar to what you have heard
of the effects on Shishmaref which is up north. So our villages
are being impacted by that.
And one of the recommendations that I have is I think we
need to go to each of the villages to identify what problems
they are having in terms of erosion. What problems with the
long-term impact with the flooding that occurs annually. Each
village will identify their own problems and how it affects
them, because if we go from one village which may be 10 miles
away, they say the problem we have is different than the next
village.
So, with that, I think one of the things that you've heard
regarding some of the issues that they have identified, you
know, a potential site, but there's more to do in terms of
trying to stop or prevent the erosion from occurring. And I
think that would require working together, being able to
relocate to a site that's more suitable and will not affect
them for long term.
So we need to involve the villages, those that are going to
be directly impacted at the village level, in planning and
implementation of how to address some of the issues that they
have regarding flooding and erosion. You know, if we have a
great big plan of someone coming in from the outside to say
that this is the way the erosion is going to be addressed and
this led to further damage, they may not identify some of the
things that the people in the villages have seen and not
included in the plans of how to address them.
So I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to write some
information regarding the issues that we have with flooding and
erosion. I will state that I'm not an engineer, but I think
that the people that live in the villages have a better idea of
how to address some of these concerns and might also be able to
address some of the identifiable problems they have observed
for many years.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Myron P. Naneng, Sr.
My name is Myron P. Naneng, Sr., President of the Association of
Village Council Presidents. The Association of Village Council
Presidents is a tribal consortium that represents 56 villages on the
Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta in Western Alaska.
First, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to make a
presentation regarding the problems of the floods and erosion that is
effecting our numerous villages on the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta.
Floods occur on an annual basis and this is primarily caused by
snow and ice conditions in the river systems, while on the coast, it is
caused by weather. The floods occur on the coast during the fall season
before winter sets in to freeze the lakes and sea on the coast.
However, erosion is more of a problem that faces many of the
villages within the region, both on the coast and river systems. The
village of Newtok is the prime example of a village within our region
that needs to relocate to a new site. The location has been arranged by
all stakeholders who have landholdings that would allow this now,
however, the problem may be how to accomplish it.
Other villages are now looking at longer term impacts of erosion on
their infrastructure. Take for instance, the airport in Hooper Bay.
Over the years, the airport has gotten shorter due to erosion at one
end. Now, it may eventually all be at sea, due to the erosion that is
occurring along the whole length of the runway. The village
corporation, and the local community are having planning meetings with
State of Alaska, Department of Public Facilities and Transportation to
identify a new site for the airport that is far removed from the
coastal erosion.
Villages on the Yukon River, especially those near the mouth of the
river are more subject to erosion than those further upriver. This is
more due to the soil and tundra that the villages are located on.
Villages of Alakanak, Emmonak, Kotlik and Nunam Iqua are slowly eroding
on the riverbanks. At Emmonak, rocks have been placed on the riverbank
to slow the erosion down and it is showing some success. However, a
site above the village is eroding that may cause some concern for the
village eventually. Alakanak is in a similar situation, with erosion
eating away some land front along the river. Whatever can be used to
slow the erosion has been placed on the riverbank. Nunam Iqua and
Kotlik face the same problem of eroding riverbank.
On the Kuskokwim River, the villages of Upper/Lower Kalskag's,
Tuluksak, Akiak, Akiachak, Kwethluk, Bethel, Napaskiak, Oscarville,
Napakiak, Tuntutuliak, Eek have erosion problems. Other villages that
are in the tributaries are also affected by erosion. Bethel has been
addressing the problem with a seawall that extends most of riverfront,
and Kwethluk has placed sand bags in areas that are considered
problematic.
Coastal villages are not exempt from the problem as well. Quihagak,
Kongiganak, Kwillingok are also having erosion issues. However, these
villages are affected by floods in the fall that are similar to those
that affect Shishmaref, but not to as great extend as that village.
A survey of erosion problems should be done with each village.
Understanding the seasonal impacts, such as the spring floods in the
river systems, with ice has an impact on the riverbanks. Fall flooding
and tidal impacts along the coast have more of an impact on coastal
villages. However, each village has its own identifiable problem, that
causes the erosion that is part of the eco-system and villages need to
be participants in planning and addressing the erosion problem.
Thank you for the opportunity to present information on the
problems of erosion. Since I am not an engineer, I will not suggest how
to deal with these erosion problems, but would highly recommend that
who ever is going to be working on these that local input be garnered
to the maximum extend possible. Have a great stay here in Alaska, and
if you have come back for a short time, welcome back and if you're a
first time visitor, welcome.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. If the Senators will
look at the map that we have provided, the A, B, C, D areas are
between the Yukon and Kuskokwim, the lower river is the
Kuskokwim and the upper is the Yukon. It has 56 villages in
that area. I think this is the area that probably has the worst
flooding problem as compared to those that are on the shoreline
that have the erosion problem, primarily from the sea, but the
erosion is the same on the rivers even though there's no
flooding, right?
Mr. Naneng. Yes. One thing I would like to add is when you
go to each and every village, like Russian Mission on the Yukon
and Kuskokwim, you will see these measuring--what they call the
measuring tape type things where they show 5 feet, 6 feet, all
the way down to 4 feet. And it shows what they consider to be
the flood levels and how high the water gets when it's
threatening villages.
Chairman Stevens. There's a photo right now up there on
erosion. Because Senator Murkowski has to leave, let me yield
to her first. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Stevens. I appreciate
that courtesy. As you well know, Myron, when I was out in the
YK Delta last summer, I had an opportunity to look at the
erosion in some of those river delta communities. We did see
the measurements in every community. I don't think there was a
single community that I visited of the 12 or 13 where we didn't
see evidence of flooding. The high-level mark unofficially on
some building or whether going down on the riverbank itself. So
it was very apparent, very visible as we know.
Just listening to the testimony of the four of you, there's
a common theme here. Loretta, you mentioned just the
bureaucracy that you have to deal with with the Corps and all
the hoops and hurdles that need to be jumped, but I also heard
a request, if you will, for an assessment of what we have out
there. Representative Joule, I noticed in your testimony under
your proposal for possible solutions, you suggested adopting of
a statewide erosion plan, which includes an assessment of the
villages.
I would ask the panel, whether or not there is an informal
assessment, whether with, Myron, in your area, is there a
regional assessment of the status of erosion, or is there any
coordinated effort at this point either at the local or State
level that you are aware of? I throw that out to all four of
you.
Mr. Joule. Senator Murkowski, at the State level, as I
stated, there's--basically we have to wait for a declaration of
some sort. We're aware of areas that will have a problem, but
generally because we don't have State policies in place, we're
kind of hamstrung to do anything until the declaration has been
declared of some sort. So we're pretty much in the reaction
mode.
I'll let the other panelists speak more to their own. I
will state that sometimes opportunities present themselves and
with the expertise and testimony that we've had and also in
some of the work that we're currently doing with the current
administration, we can take a lot of this information and begin
the ground work so it can happen on a statewide level.
Senator Murkowski. Anybody else want to add to that?
Mr. Naneng. Senator Murkowski, there is no coordinated
effort that I know of to identify the concerns regarding the
flooding and erosion. Like Representative Joule says, the only
time they start--have a major concern about it is when major
flooding or erosion is taking away infrastructure in the
community.
Senator Murkowski. So there is no preemptive effort; it's
all crisis management.
Mr. Ahmaogak. I'll try to answer your question in terms of
whether there has been an assessment. At the local level we do
our own assessment in terms of erosion and mitigation plans
that we know are the best of our level, but there is poor
coordination at this time in terms of erosion practices and
why, when, what parts of it. For our part from the North Slope,
it's done entirely on our own. No coordination at the State, no
coordination at the Federal level, just to answer your
question.
Studies have been conducted at our own level, but nobody at
the State or Federal agencies coordinate or help us in our
effort.
Ms. Bullard. Just one comment. If you can move houses fast
enough so they don't get damaged, therefore you don't have a
disaster, therefore you don't get assistance. That's kind of
what folks are faced with. You move stuff fast enough, you
don't have a disaster.
Senator Murkowski. Mayor, I wanted to follow up on your
comments. First of all, as far as the Barrow research facility,
I had an opportunity to talk with you folks up there about that
and all the promises that that holds. So I'm looking forward to
working with you to make that a reality. You mentioned the
memorandum of understanding that Barrow has insofar as a
mitigation plan, but that you're the only community up there in
your area that has a mitigation plan.
Other than the cost and meeting the 50-percent cost
sharing, what are the other barriers to working out a
mitigation plan that the other villages have up on the Slope
there? Is it just the cost issue, or are there any other
factors involved?
Mr. Ahmaogak. I don't think it's purely on a cost issue
alone. I think it goes a lot more than that. Qualifications to
meet their stringent requirements to be able to qualify as a
village, to be able to partner with the Army Corps of Engineers
is really strict and difficult to try to achieve and convince
them.
We've attempted numerous times to try to enable some of our
villages to be at it. We've never been able to do so. It's not
just cost. Their requirements are placing them as part of the
mitigation plan and to pay 50 percent, all of those sort of
requirements are very difficult. We've done it only for Barrow.
Senator Murkowski. Why was Barrow able to be more
successful with it than, say, any of the other villages?
Mr. Ahmaogak. We took it one step further and allowed for
some technical research, scientific advice, and those
requirements to meet a lot of the strict requirements. I can't
per se right now pinpoint what those difficulties are, but we
couldn't convince the Corps to accept the other two villages,
to be under the Corps of Engineers.
I think the qualifications in place up there to be included
as a mitigation plan, their requirements are very strict and
difficult at best to achieve. We're willing to work with the
villages by all means to help them out, but it's the Corps of
Engineers that keeps saying no, no, no.
Senator Murkowski. Ms. Bullard, you had mentioned using the
BIA roads money in an attempt to use this as the match, and I
appreciate the dilemma that that puts you in, and a decision as
to whether or not to utilize all those monies for something
like feasibility and then realize you have nothing available to
do the preventive maintenance work to be done right now in
order to stop it, whether it's putting rocks out on the banks
or what have you.
What else can we do? I'm concerned because the problems
that we're talking about here--it's not as if you've got a
different situation in different regions of the State. Sounds
like it's pretty much uniform across the board. We don't have
the ability to meet the match. We're dealing with a Corps that
is certainly well intentioned, but you've got a bureaucratic
process that is difficult to negotiate at best.
You have suggested that you think that through this working
group you can make some headway, but really where do we go? If
we don't have the money and we're dealing with a level of
bureaucracy that can't be penetrated, what do we do?
Ms. Bullard. My suggestion is that a process be set in
place whereby the matching requirement can be waived and that,
you know, these communities need to be helped and they don't
have the money, many of them don't have the money.
Senator Murkowski. But it sounds like it's more than just
the money. As the mayor has indicated, the cost share is a big
factor, but perhaps not the only factor. How do we get beyond
the dollar problem that we have, but also in working things out
with the Corps so we can make some progress?
Ms. Bullard. I think that, again, perhaps this work group
could develop recommendations and consideration by Congress in
terms of streamlining the process, streamlining the application
process, the money management process, so that you can put
those resources together. For example, right now you've got
this agency doing this little piece maybe, if we can get them
to do it, and someone over here doing something entirely
different. They all have different qualifications in terms of
their sharing funds.
I'm surprised anything gets done in the bush because it's
all so complicated. Trying to drive these processes from a
community of 200, 300, 400 people. It's very difficult.
Mr. Ahmaogak. If I could interject to your question. In
light of--I realize there's a lot of funding needed here to do
a lot of mitigation. We sense that all across Alaska--
relocations for the storm surges. But I think the villages and
the regions outside of rural Alaska are in dire need, and like
I stated, my suggestion is that we need help when we declare an
emergency. That's the first and foremost thing, that when we
need help, we need help.
That would be a big plus on our part in the event we don't
get mitigation funds. We're still vulnerable to coastal
erosions and disaster preparations and all what have you. But
science, I believe, is one effort that, like what we suggested
before with global climate change and the reason why we wanted
to do it is to get the baseline data on what is really
happening out there.
The first and foremost thing is if science can be had, then
perhaps maybe as a tool that we can find out what is the best
cost benefit that we can do to reduce the cost to do the
mitigation plan. We don't have that technical expertise per se.
It will certainly help us out if we have the best coastal
erosion people in the world to help us and say, hey, we can
help you design something that would be cost effective and
economical.
We don't have any of those resources. I would highly
suggest that something like this be looked at from our
standpoint. It would be cheaper for the Federal Government and
at the State and local level. We don't have expertise like that
at the State; we need that. That's only a small part of what
needs to be done before mitigation plans.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I regret it, but I am
going to have to excuse myself. Thank you for bringing this
very important hearing and inviting so many qualified speakers.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been just
sitting here and listening to the conversation and the
challenges you have in your villages, especially along the
Yukon River. It's been our experience in Montana, these darn
rivers go where they want to go, and no matter what the
conditions are around them, we're going to have times of
flooding and times of low water and these kind of things. But I
was interested in Ms. Bullard's comments that sometimes when
you try to coordinate an area as large as you have to deal with
here and as many challenges as you have, it's kind of like
herding calves on horseback.
You would operate really well in Washington, DC, which I
still maintain is 17 square miles of logic-free environment.
Whenever you've got to coordinate, especially between
bureaucracies; you've got the BIA, you've got the Department of
the Interior, you've got the Corps of Engineers, and then
you've got your State people who have specific ideas on how
we're either going to try to control erosion here or relocate
or whatever for what's happening.
I happen to believe that we've got a situation that is both
environmental and cyclical at the same time. Those are very
serious challenges. The chairman of the Appropriations
Committee sitting over here on the right has made a comment
that sometimes these agencies are bound by law on what they can
do, so we're going to have to do something in Congress to
change some of the ways we react to your part of the world and
Mr. Naneng's part of the world because there's different
circumstances.
Then Mr. Joule has got to coordinate the whole thing. So
it's very interesting, very interesting dialog here, and I
don't have a specific question. These hearings are very, very
good for me because it's hard for us to fathom the challenges
you have coming from the Lower 48. Because you have--it's a
different world. I realize that. I've been here many times.
I've always understood it. We'll have to deal with it.
Sometimes Congress only deals with disasters and
catastrophes. That's what changes quicker and sometimes in the
wrong direction than any other time. We react to different
losses at different times. Thank you for your testimony this
morning. I appreciate that very much. Thanks for being candid
with us. You've been very candid and very realistic about the
challenges that you have. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Sununu.
Senator Sununu. Are there any examples of emergency
response or mitigation in the villages with which you work that
have been successful? Where the emergency response was well
coordinated, organization was effective, or specific mitigation
projects that have been built or constructed either with a
State, Federal or local initiative that's been successful that
we should look at as a model of what might be achieved? Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Ahmaogak. Thank you. Good question. We do have--we
wrote up our own emergency disaster standard operating
procedures at the local level including the input of all the
villages, so it's well coordinated just for our region, that we
have laid out numerous procedures that are there in case we
have to declare a disaster and all resources are certainly
there at the local level. But then outside of that, we have
nothing.
And I think the State and local agencies need to work
closely with these localities that have written these plans and
to fit in and coordinate much more so and not have even copies
of them if they can. We do have some small minor grant funds
that we have to apply for that are highly competitive in
writing these things. It's really a competitive grant, and
that's the process we had to go through to write our own
disaster coordination plan and standard operating procedures.
I think it should be suggested that this be much more
freely resources available so that all the regions and all the
villages not compete for this. It doesn't make any sense. Make
funds available to write their plans. At the local level, once
they have their plans at the State and Federal levels, disaster
plans, in terms of mitigation that you should use as a model,
that's a very difficult question. Financial resources are very
limited. You've heard it all across here that we don't have the
resources with the budget cuts and the economy going down, I
mean, that's very difficult.
We would like to have the resources and make a lot of
suggestions at the local level and to the State agencies and
Federal agencies and try to set that model, but it's not all
coming together well. We're entirely on our own, so to speak,
out there when we have situations like that. But we're willing
to attempt to do that from the North Slope, to build a model
that's something that can really work. That's how I would
answer your question.
In terms of mitigation, Army Corps is just one example
where attempts to see how that's going to play out with
planning and design and matching capital grants and the
engineering that's going to happen and the resources that's
going to be made available, like gravel to do the mitigation.
I'm trying to see if that's going to be a worthwhile model. It
takes, I think ironically, a 6-year period working with Army
Corps of Engineers from the planning stages to engineering to
construction. By that time, you have 6 years of storms. So I
can't answer that question. This is the first model we have
attempted at the local level.
Senator Sununu. That's in Barrow?
Mr. Ahmaogak. That's in Barrow, that's right.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Naneng.
Mr. Naneng. It takes a Governor or someone higher up to
declare a disaster before anything happens, before a disaster
is responded to. For instance, out in Bethel, Governor Knowles'
declaration of disaster took time to get money from Congress to
address the seawall, the erosion of the seawall. That applies
in the same way to each and every one of the villages.
Senator Sununu. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Could I ask the mayor a question? The storms
that you have alluded to, were they summer storms?
Mr. Ahmaogak. Pardon me?
Senator Burns. The storms you've alluded to in the
testimony you had, were these storms in the summer or winter?
Mr. Ahmaogak. These storms are happening mostly in the fall
time, like October.
Chairman Stevens. Well, I hope you are all familiar with
the study that the GAO made. We would like the GAO to review
this. They've made some great suggestions, but there are some
alternatives there. I would appreciate if you would give us
your opinion concerning their suggestions. I do think, George,
your concept of these baseline studies is really, really sound.
We must do that. We must know what we're working against.
The testimony we heard yesterday about the cyclones, the
winter cyclones is rather startling. And if that's a true
prediction, we're going to start getting more winter storms.
That will be difficult to handle in your part of the State.
There's no question about that. I would urge you to take a look
at this. We've got extra copies back there. Give us ideas as to
what options they suggest you feel are best. They have made
their suggestions based upon past reactions in other parts of
the country.
I do think that Lisa's suggestion yesterday that we try to
set up an authority to deal with the erosion/flooding control
made some sense. Whether that should be a State authority or a
Federal authority or something like a Federal/State authority
needs to be examined. Again, we would like to have your
suggestions on that too. We do thank you very much for coming
and for your participation in this hearing.
It is something we have to pay some attention to because
every indication is, unfortunately, things are going to get
worse in terms of this area of flooding and erosion.
We will now take a 10-minute recess while we get ready for
the next series of witnesses. Our next panel is Mayor Hugh
Short, Ms. Vorderstrasse, Mr. Ivanoff and Mr. Rock.
Thank you for coming very much. Good morning. Glad to see
you. Call on the mayor of Bethel, Mr. Hugh Short, first. Let me
again ask you to keep your statements to 8 minutes or less. Two
other panels are left this morning. Mr. Short.
STATEMENT OF HUGH SHORT, MAYOR, BETHEL, ALASKA
Mr. Short. Thank you, Senator Stevens, Senator Burns and
Senator Sununu. It's a real honor to be sitting here to provide
my testimony to you.
First off, I would like to welcome you to Alaska and tell
you a little bit about Bethel. The city of Bethel is located on
the north shore of the largest oxbow along the Kuskokwim River.
The lower Kuskokwim River is an active meandering river that
travels through low-lying tundra regions to the Bering Sea. In
a region without interconnecting roads, this river provides the
principal transportation corridor for most heavy commodities
including fuel.
Because of the river's active meander and low-lying
terrain, it is susceptible to both active erosion and flooding.
The Kuskokwim River is the key to economic self-sufficiency in
our region, and Bethel serves as the host that can promote
economic self-determination.
There's about 6,000 residents in the city of Bethel. We
serve as the regional hub for about 25,000 residents in the YK
Delta. If you look in the GAO report, there's 56 communities;
49 of the 56 communities in our region are on that list of
communities that are affected by flooding and erosion, so this
issue is very close to the heart of many people in the region.
The location and growth of the city of Bethel is
attributable to its being the farthest upriver location that
can accommodate large ocean-going vessels. This governed the
location of the U.S. Army Air Corps airbase developed during
World War II. The port and the airbase would provide the
necessary beginning infrastructure for many other large Federal
Government in the 1950s, such as the White Alice communications
facility, the regional IHS hospital and a large Air Force
facility that was later converted to the regional BIA
headquarters.
The community has always been challenged with active river
erosion. In earlier periods, the 1960s through the 1970s, the
community itself attempted to contain this erosion. I was born
and raised in Bethel. I was born in 1973. My father is in the
taxi cab business, and one of the first attempts growing up in
the 1970s in Bethel was when a car was broken down, they would
take it down to the bank and sit it on the beach there. I have
pictures of hundreds of cars sitting on the beach of Bethel as
an attempt of the community to try and deal with the erosion.
In fact, there are postcards still floating around with that
picture.
However, it was soon learned that the resources needed to
effectively manage this were far beyond the means of the
community. As a result, vast amounts of river frontage real
estate were lost to erosion. In 1968 Congress, by resolution,
directed the Corps of Engineers to investigate this erosion
problem. Unfortunately, Bethel found itself in a similar status
as many of the smaller communities now being mentioned in the
GAO December 2003 report--the cost of an effective erosion
control project far exceeded the required cost/benefit ratio.
It would be another decade, 1978, before Congress again
directed the Corps, through a continuing resolution of its
original 1968 resolution, to again investigate the erosion
problem. Tragically, throughout the previous decade, a
significant amount of irreplaceable land was lost. However,
because significant large infrastructures were now being
threatened, including the bulk fuel facility and the IHS
hospital, the Corps determined that an effective erosion
containment project would have a positive cost/benefit ratio.
As a result of this, in the 1980s and 1990s, through both
State and Federal funding, the 8,000 linear feet of erosion
protection was put into place. Since this construction, no
further uplands have been lost. Just a side note that's not
included in here, the city of Bethel currently spends
approximately $300,000 per year in maintenance of that seawall
and erosion protection.
As mentioned in the report, the city again is engaged
through the Corps in rehabbing, extending and improving another
1,200 feet of this wall system.
We certainly support the recommendations being offered in
the December 2003 GAO report. Particularly, the recommendation
that social and environmental factors be considered in cost/
benefit analysis and the cost/benefit requirement relief
proposed in H.R. 2557. If such had been available to the city
during the 1960s and 1970s, literally hundreds of thousands of
dollars of valuable land could have been saved, as well as
homes.
Additionally, we support the recommendation that the Denali
Commission serve as the clearinghouse for future erosion and
flooding support. The Denali Commission has set the bar for
coordination and intervention of major projects in rural
Alaska.
In conclusion, it is also important to mention that a
significant portion of the city's downtown is situated in a
FEMA-determined special hazard flood area. The city has been in
the National Flood Insurance Program since 1974. It
historically maintains a rigorous management posture when it
comes to development within this special flood hazard area. We
believe the community's flood claim history over the past
decades bears this out.
A side note, Bethel has the resources, Bethel has the
infrastructure and the population to support a relationship
with the Corps of Engineers. We have the capabilities, we have
staff within the city to do that. Unfortunately, many of the
communities that Mr. Naneng spoke about earlier do not have
those resources.
The best example that I can see of a successful Denali
Commission intervention probably has been health clinic
construction in the State of Alaska. If you look at the amount
of clinics constructed in the last 5 years through the Denali
Commission and the coordination that the Denali Commission has
provided, it has allowed smaller communities to be able to
access that kind of scale. There's resources there, there's the
staff at the Denali Commission, ANTHC is available.
Thinking about Senator Murkowski's comments earlier, I
believe that if an approach was taken with the erosion and
flooding to allow the Denali Commission or another organization
to be the clearinghouse to be able to provide that technical
assistance to small villages and someone was on the other end
of the line to answer that phone and help them, I believe that
will go a long way, along with relationships with regional
organizations.
If you look at the most successful areas, regional
organizations provide that infrastructure to be able to get the
information and type of assistance out there.
So, I thank you. I hope I haven't gone over the 8 minutes.
I'd be willing to answer any questions later on.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Short.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hugh Short
Dear Senator Stevens and members of the Committee on
Appropriations, thank you for providing the City of Bethel and other
rural communities affected by flooding and erosion the opportunity to
testify about this extremely important issue.
The City of Bethel is located on the north shore of the largest
oxbow along the Kuskokwim River. The lower Kuskokwim River is an active
meandering river that travels through low lying tundra regions to the
Bering Sea. In a region without interconnecting roads this river
provides the principal transportation corridor for most heavy
commodities including fuel. Because of the rivers active meander and
low lying terrain it is susceptible to both active erosion and
flooding. The Kuskokwim River is the key to economic self-sufficiency
in our region, and Bethel serves as the host that can promote economic
self-determination.
The location and growth of the City of Bethel is attributable to
its being the farthest upriver location that can accommodate large
ocean going vessels. This governed the location of the U.S. Army Air
Corps airbase developed during WW II. The port and the airbase would
provide the necessary beginning infrastructure for many other large
federal government projects in the 1950's such as the White Alice
communications facility (part of NORAD), the regional IHS hospital and
a large Air Force facility that was later converted to the regional BIA
headquarters.
The community has always been challenged with active river erosion.
In earlier periods (1960's through the 1970's) the community itself
attempted to contain this erosion. However, it was soon learned that
the resources needed to effectively manage this were far beyond the
means of the community. As a result vast amounts of river frontage real
estate were lost to erosion. In 1968 Congress, by resolution, directed
the Corps of Engineers to investigate this erosion problem.
Unfortunately Bethel found itself in a similar status as many of the
smaller communities now being mentioned in the GAO December 2003 Alaska
Native Villages report--the cost of an effective erosion control
project far exceeded the required cost/benefit ratio.
It would be another decade (1978) before Congress again directed
the Corps, through a continuing resolution of its original 1968
resolution, to again investigate the erosion problem. Tragically,
throughout that previous decade, significant amounts of irreplaceable
land was lost. However, because significant large infrastructures were
now being threatened (bulk fuel facility and the IHS hospital compound)
the Corps determined that an effective erosion containment project
would have a positive cost/benefit ratio.
As a result of this in the 1980's and 1990's, through both state
and federal funding, the 8,000 linear feet of erosion protection now in
place was erected. Since this construction no further uplands have been
lost to erosion.
As mentioned in the December 2003 GAO report, the city is again
engaged through the Corps in rehabbing, extending and improving another
1,200 feet of this wall system.
We certainly support the recommendations being offered in the
December 2003 GAO report. Particularly the recommendation that social
and environmental factors be considered in cost/benefit analysis, and
the cost/benefit requirement relief proposed in H.R. 2557. If such had
been available to our city during the 1960's and 1970's, literally
hundreds of thousands of dollars of now irretrievable land could have
been saved.
Additionally, we support the recommendation that the Denali
Commission serve as the clearinghouse for future erosion and flooding
support. The Denali Commission has set the bar for coordination and
intervention of major projects in rural Alaska.
In conclusion it is also important to mention that a significant
portion of the city's downtown is situated in a FEMA determined Special
Hazard flood area. The city has been in the national flood insurance
program since 1974. It historically maintains a rigorous management
posture when it comes to development within this special flood hazard
area. We believe the communities flood claim history over the past
decades bears this out.
Thank you again for your interest in erosion and flooding in Alaska
Native villages. Please let me know if you have further questions.
Chairman Stevens. Ms. Vorderstrasse.
STATEMENT OF EDITH A. VORDERSTRASSE, MAYOR, BARROW,
ALASKA
Ms. Vorderstrasse. Good morning, Senator. Mr. Chair and
members of the committee, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify on behalf of our community, Barrow.
I was born and raised in Barrow. I have seen many changes
to our coastline. As a child, I got to enjoy the vast coastline
we once had. The coastline was once our playground, a place for
celebration of our communities. For those of you who may not
understand what nalukataq is, it's when we have a successful
spring whale hunt and the crews select their day of
celebration, a gathering place of our successful hunters where
they butchered their harvest.
We in Barrow have always lived near the sea because we
depended on the sea for our livelihood. Particularly, when we
lived in sand houses and had little in the way of
infrastructure. However, in the last hundred years we have put
down roots that did not foresee the erosion of our coastline.
We have millions of dollars in infrastructure in harm's way. As
the ice on the Arctic Ocean grows more fragile, so does our
coastline.
We are experiencing more frequent storms as early as July,
and the ice is nowhere to be seen for at least 150 to 200
miles. We are at a crossroads. Is it practical to stand and
fight our mother ocean, or do we surrender and move? Do we
sacrifice our beautiful beaches to concrete and barriers to our
livelihood or do we pull back?
One way or the other we have to make an attempt to salvage
or plan new facilities to take the places of the ones that
currently exist. We are very fortunate that the North Slope
Borough was established in 1972 where the Borough took most of
the municipality's powers so that they can provide for our
community, and we work very closely with Mayor Ahmaogak. Mayor
Ahmaogak provided you wonderful information today with the
history of the storms and erosion, the riverbanks and their
erosion. It's not just our beach, but it's also the rivers
where our ancestors went out hunting.
My parents have had to move their hunting cabins several
times away from the rivers. Sitting here listening to all the
different panels from yesterday and today, we have come to an
understanding of how we all need to work together. And I want
to thank you for recognizing the bureaucratic dilemma that we
are in when we have a storm in trying to address the needs and
trying to declare a disaster.
I think as we all sit here listening to all the testimony,
questioning the scientists talking about the weather changes,
it has brought us to a closer relationship to where we as
community leaders, as our legislature--and how we all need
appropriations from you, from the United States, in order to
address these needs that we have in our communities. I just
would like to thank the Senate Appropriations Committee for
coming to Alaska to listen to our concerns, and hopefully that
there will be enough money appropriated in order to address
some of these.
Some of our communities have a much greater serious need,
and I just would like to thank all of you for coming here and
listening to our concerns. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edith A. Vorderstrasse
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me
this opportunity to testify on behalf of my community Barrow.
Born and raised in Barrow, Alaska, I have seen many changes to our
coastline. As a child I got to enjoy our vast coastline we once had.
The coastline was our playground, a place where celebrations of the
community take place such a Nalukataq (summer celebration of the
successful whaling captains and their crews after the spring hunt), and
gathering place of our successful hunters where they butchered their
harvest.
We in Barrow have always lived near the sea because we depend on
the sea for our livelihood. This was practical when we lived in sod
houses and had little in the way of infrastructure however in the last
hundred years we have put down roots that didn't foresee the erosion of
our coastline. We have millions of dollars in structures and
infrastructure in harms way. As the calming hand of ice on the Arctic
Ocean grows more fragile so does our coastline. We are experiencing
more frequent storms as earlier as July and the calming hand of the ice
in nowhere to be seen for it is at less 150 to 200 miles away. We are
at a crossroads. Is it practical to stand and fight our mother ocean?
Or do we surrender and move. Do we sacrifice our beautiful beaches to
concrete and barriers to our lifeblood or do we pull back? One way or
another we have to make an attempt to salvage or plan new facilities to
take the place of the ones that currently exist.
We as a community will need to make some difficult decisions in the
very near future to address the above and we don't have the financial
means to address it.
Sitting here listening to all the different panels from yesterday
and today, we all have come to an understanding that we need to work
together in order for us to accomplish the task that is before us.
Organizations must be willing to restructure the application process so
that communities will be able to qualify for the assistance that they
need. Thank you for recognizing the bureaucratic dilemma we endure when
our communities are in distress and need the assistance of the agencies
during a storm or after the assessment of the storm.
Chairman Stevens. Mr. Ivanoff.
STATEMENT OF STEVE IVANOFF, PRESIDENT, UNALAKLEET
NATIVE CORPORATION
Mr. Ivanoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back home. To
Senator Burns and Senator Sununu, welcome to our State. We hope
this is a very pleasant experience for you in the hope that you
will make it back again.
I'll be speaking to you today as President of the
Unalakleet Native Corporation and thank you for this
opportunity. Unfortunately, our village is very experienced on
both flooding and erosion issues.
Unalakleet is roughly 400 miles west of Anchorage. The site
location was chosen for its access, quick and easy access to
the subsistence resources in that area. This settlement has
been in existence for over 2,000 years, as confirmed by an
archaeologist. Historically, we have been host to several
Federal agencies. We had an Air Force Base located 5 miles
northeast of the village. We had White Alice communication site
stationed 10 miles to the east, and we had an FAA site in the
past.
These facilities have all closed down with the end of the
cold war and modern technology. As a child, I was experienced
with the floods of 1964 and 1974. We spent several days at the
Air Force Base waiting out the storms with the other children,
women, and others from our village while the men basically
stayed back and watched the storms consume our community.
For 29 years we were fortunate to not have floods of this
magnitude. However, we did see the normal fall storms that
consumed some structures and in my lifetime I have seen several
buildings moved. Our community was successful in having a
declaration of disaster from last year's fall storm.
Unfortunately, we have yet to see these funds allocated, and
meanwhile we continue to see with the storms that have been
coming our structures and gabion wall erode slowly.
My comments are not intended to be critical of the National
Resources Conservation Service or any agency involved in
assisting us. We appreciate any and all of the services they
have provided. I mention the NRCS because they have been the
most receptive agency to be here in our needs. They have been
good to work with and their interpretation is rural friendly,
we feel, and we appreciate their work.
But in the month of November is when we have the storms in
our area, as you saw yesterday the cyclones develop in the
Arctic Ocean. Growing up we didn't see that. All of our storms
historically came from the Bering Sea, but with the ice moving
it's a new scenario.
In the late 1970s, after the flood of 1974, the State DOT
built a road along the west side of the village, creating an
access road between the airport and the business section of
town, but more importantly a barrier between the community and
the ocean. This has held safely for our structures for 29
years.
Erosion, the greatest erosion occurs at the mouth of the
river. Additionally, erosion occurs along the beach. Erosion
takes place somewhat in the springtime, but primarily with the
fall storms. In 2000 the NRCS built us a retaining wall in our
village beginning at the mouth of the river and stretching
along the beach. It was a $1 million project. Without this wall
we would have seen some structures in our communities, I
believe, fall into the ocean. The retaining wall is good, but
has room for improvement.
We were not allowed to improve on the contour of the land,
but basically to be a pro-active measure, but with the
guidelines we have to follow the contour of the land. The
Native Village of Unalakleet working with this program built
this, recognizing that the wall was too low in some areas, and
we believe that the wall basically saved some of the buildings
from structural damage. The above are considerations for future
improvements.
They were left out of the original project due to funding
constraints. We feel the life of this project has been
diminished due to stringent funding guidelines. We are in
desperate need of immediate protection from flooding and
erosion. As you've heard before, we don't qualify for the
projects under the Corps' interpretation of the guidelines. The
State of Alaska has provided local match for studies by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the amount of over $50 million
and has yet to see a construction project of significance from
this study.
Our village has been, and currently is active, in trying to
make changes to these policies. However, we are frustrated with
the hurdles that we face. Until there are changes in Federal
policies or an exemption is made for underdeveloped States such
as Alaska, we will remain vulnerable. While most of the revenue
generated in Alaska is extracted from the rural areas, we still
struggle for simple things such as safety. In rural Alaska
subsistence is the biggest driving force of existence and has
not been accounted for in the benefit side of the policies.
However, I understand that it is now being considered.
We have seen some successes with the construction of the
roads and the gabion wall, but we need to eliminate the
hardships that come with each disaster. Unfortunately, there
are funds available for reactive measures, but little for
proactive safeguards.
We are one of the youngest and the most underdeveloped
States in the Union. This makes the job of our Alaska
congressional delegation, and you, our Senate Appropriations
Committee, a monumental task given Alaska's immediate needs,
especially when compared to the existing infrastructure of the
other States. Our wonderful State has a lot to offer, but we do
need to make it a safe place for all, residents and visitors
alike. We sympathize with the other communities facing their
own flooding and erosion problems and realize there is no one-
size-fits-all solution.
An elder from our village was telling us last week that he
paid $19 for a roll of roofing paper and $102 to get it to our
village, so his $19 roofing paper cost him $121.
In conclusion, I invite you to visit Unalakleet and see the
threats we face. The Federal programs are not functioning the
way they should and the way we think you intended. We
appreciate the study done by the General Accounting Office
released last December and urge Congress to implement its
recommendations.
Again, thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Ivanoff.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Ivanoff
Welcome to our great State of Alaska. We hope this is a very
pleasant experience for you, in the hope that you will come back again.
I am Steve Ivanoff from Unalakleet and will be speaking to you today as
the President of Unalakleet Native Corporation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the flooding and
erosion problems we have, and have had in our community of Unalakleet.
Unfortunately, we are experienced on both of these issues.
Introduction--Background
Unalakleet is 393 air miles west of Anchorage on the easternmost
part of Norton Sound. This location was selected to provide quick and
easy access to the many subsistence activities that this area has to
offer. It sits on a sand-spit between the Unalakleet River and the
Norton Sound. This settlement has been estimated to be in existence for
over 2,000 years. The population is approaching 800 with an Alaska
Native population of approximately 85 percent, Inupiat and Yupik
Eskimos, and Athabascan Indians. It is classified as a regional sub-
hub, serving mail and freighting services for itself and four other
villages. The Bering Straits School District central offices are
located in Unalakleet serving 15 villages in the Norton Sound region,
and a sub-regional clinic that provides medical services for Unalakleet
residents and four other villages. Commercial fishing was the driving
force of economics for decades but with the decline of the salmon stock
and the crash of the herring market, Unalakleet has become a service
providing community. A 6,000 foot runway was constructed in the 60's as
our village was a host to hundreds of Air Force service men for a
couple of decades having an Air Force base 5 miles northeast of the
village. A White Alice site was also stationed 10 miles to the east,
along with a Federal Aviation Administration facility, housing a number
of workers and their families. These facilities were all shut down with
the end of the cold war and modern technology. As a result of these
services we still have contaminated soils being extracted from our
subsistence grounds as I speak.
As a child I remember staying at the Air Force base for a few days
during the floods of 1964, and 1974 along with the other youth, women,
and elders from our village. Some homes, including ours, were removed
from their foundations and many others filled with water halfway up the
walls during these floods. For 29 years we were fortunate to experience
milder fall storms and did not have another surge of this magnitude
until the flood of 2003. However, within those 29 years we did
experience the normal fall storms and saw buildings moved to escape
disaster and some structures consumed by the ocean. With their own
resources the community tried to combat the storms with crude means but
saw all of these temporary fixes overwhelmed by the ocean. The village
agencies were successful in having Unalakleet declared a disaster from
the flood of 2003. The funds have yet to be allocated that will cover
the cost of the clean up and repair to the gabion wall. In addition,
areas that had protective rock need to be restored. This flood filled
yards and basements with seawater that made it over the wall. I had to
have rock hauled in by a local contractor to divert the water surge
around my home. The first load he hauled in was sand and dissipated in
seconds but fortunately the rock quickly diverted the water.
My comments are not intended to be critical of the National
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) or any agency involved in
assisting us. We appreciate any and all of the services they have
graciously provided.
Flooding.--The month of November is when we have the storms that
have threatened our community with water surges from the ocean. In the
late 70's a road was constructed on the ocean side of the village
serving two purposes. It provided an access route between the airport
and the business section of the village, and more importantly, a
barrier between the community structures and the ocean. This road is
0.9 of a mile long and had water surging over it only on the lower
section on the southern end. This lower section of the road is roughly
2 feet below the high point of this road and would be more effective if
the whole road were to be raised at or above this level. Another road
was constructed in the 80's on the north-eastern part of the village
providing an access road to the hillside and a barrier from the water
surge. These two locations are different with the western side
providing a relief from the pounding ocean waves.
Erosion.--The greatest erosion occurs at the mouth of the river,
additional erosion occurs along the beach. This takes place during the
spring thaw and the fall storms. In the year 2000, a gabion wall
erosion protection project was constructed beginning at the mouth of
the river and running along the beach. This 1,400-foot project was
funded by NRCS in the amount of $1 million. The gabion wall is shown in
the attached photos. This wall protected structures within the
community during the November flood of 2003. The gabion wall is good,
but has room for improvement, as we all know hindsight is 20/20. As a
former site supervisor for this project I feel these improvements can
be applied:
--The ends of a gabion wall needs to start and end at a solid base,
this project should have been pulled in at the end to the
existing road. Any structure should be back filled to eliminate
the backwash that causes the loss of rock as observed. The
plans did not call for backfill but we asked the site
inspectors to have this done, fortunately they approved this
otherwise a lot more damage would have occurred.
--The ocean side of the project should have had a toe constructed
below the low-tide line on the beach. This would eliminate the
undercutting we are now observing.
--A stronger wire mesh or alternate material should be used for the
gabion baskets as we are seeing a high level of wear and tear
from driftwood. We are concerned about the longevity of the
wire mesh, as much of the coating on the wire has worn off,
exposing the wire to the corrosive saltwater and accelerating
rust.
--We were not allowed to elevate the structure, leaving us to follow
the contour of the surrounding grounds. Elevating the wall
would have eliminated the need for a declaration providing
disaster assistance. The Native Village of Unalakleet and
funding from a Kawerak heavy equipment training program,
provided for the haul of additional rock for the top of the
gabions. This additional material acted as a splash rail that
saved some buildings from structural damage. These are
considerations for future improvements. They were left out of
the original project due to funding constraints. We feel the
life of this project has been diminished due to stringent
funding guidelines.
We are in desperate need of immediate protection from flooding and
erosion. Based on current cost benefit analysis guidelines of the
federal programs that address flooding and erosion we do not qualify
for projects. The State of Alaska has provided local match for studies
by the Army Corps of Engineers in the amount of over $50 million, and
has yet to see construction projects of any significance from these
studies. Our village has been, and currently is active, in trying to
make a change to these policies. We are frustrated with the hurdles
that we face. Until there are changes in federal policies, or an
exemption is made for underdeveloped states such as Alaska, we will
remain vulnerable.
While most of the revenue generated in Alaska is extracted from the
rural areas, we still struggle for simple things such as safety. In
rural Alaska, subsistence in the biggest driving force of existence and
has not been accounted for in the benefit side of the policies,
however, I understand that it is now being considered.
We have seen some successes with the construction of the roads
mentioned above and the gabion wall but we need to eliminate the
hardships that come with each disaster. Unfortunately there are funds
available for reactive measures but little for proactive safeguards.
We are one of the youngest and the most underdeveloped states in
the Union. This makes the job of our Alaska Congressional delegation,
and you, our Senate Appropriations Committee, a monumental task given
Alaska's immediate needs, especially when compared to the existing
infrastructure of the other states. Our wonderful State has a lot to
offer, but we do need to make it a safe place for all, residents and
visitors alike. We sympathize with the other communities facing their
own flooding and erosion problems and realize there is no one size fits
all solution.
In conclusion, I invite you to visit Unalakleet, and see the
threats we face. The federal programs are not functioning the way they
should, and the way we think you intended. We appreciate the study done
by the General Accounting Office, released last December, and urge
Congress to implement its recommendations.
Chairman Stevens. Mr. Rock.
STATEMENT OF REX ROCK, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIKIGAQ
CORPORATION
Mr. Rock. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would
like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in this
important hearing today on behalf of our Tri-Lateral Committee
which consists of our Native Village of Point Hope, the city of
Point Hope, and Tikigaq Corporation. I am currently the Chief
Executive Officer of Tikigaq Corporation and am testifying on
behalf of the Tri-Lateral Committee.
Point Hope is the oldest, continually inhabited community
in Northwest Alaska, which dates back to 600 B.C. Point Hope is
recognized nationally as a culturally relevant site. Today
approximately 850 residents call Point Hope home. Our
population is primarily Inupiaq, or in the western culture
referred to as Eskimo. We are part of the North Slope Borough
and are a second-class city. Point Hope is a bowhead whaling
community.
You might ask, why emphasize the fact that we are a bowhead
whaling community? Our community has many traditions
surrounding our whaling, and if there's one thing it has taught
us, it is that working as one for our people, you can
accomplish great things. Our whaling culture is so much a part
of our daily life that our community synergy is defined by it.
Our community has worked together on our flooding issues and
now we need your help.
We've noticed a lot of changes in the weather patterns in
Point Hope. The ice breaks up and leaves the shore a lot
earlier than usual. We have always had ice until July and now
it is gone the first week of June. In the fall the shore ice is
late and often isn't there to protect the shoreline when the
fall storms hit. Storms are earlier with larger and stronger
wave patterns. Our underground ice cellars are not as cold as
they used to be. Some cellars that were built in permafrost are
now melting and are full of water during the summer.
Our beaches now have runoffs either from the ocean or from
the lagoon or lakes, which makes the gravel a lot softer. Our
runway has been in jeopardy of flooding several times.
Community members worry about evacuation in the event of
flooding.
Over the past decade we realized that three separate
organizations working to obtain any assistance for funding
projects was cumbersome and likely to end unsuccessfully. Using
common goals as our guiding factor, the Tri-Lateral Committee
was formed in 2001. Quarterly meetings are held and hosted by
the different organizations. A list of priority projects was
created and the organizations have supported working together
as a method to target legislation and assistance from the North
Slope Borough, the State of Alaska, and the Federal Government.
The number one priority on the list is an evacuation road
that would lead to higher ground in case of flooding. This was
the primary concern of the community that came up at a variety
of gatherings, from the Native Corporation's annual meetings to
community meetings and gatherings.
Tikigaq relocated back in the late 1970s from the west side
of our runway to where it is today due to extreme flooding.
Today we still face flooding issues, mainly in the fall. The
flooding occurs from strong winds blowing out of the West and
Northwest creating large waves that bombard our North beach.
Our North beach is about 12 miles long and the south side is 18
miles long. The water actually reached the North end of our
runway last year. Flooding of the runway is a growing concern
of our community.
One thing that I would note is that during last year's
storms, the winds were blowing at 30 knots. If they were at 45,
definitely they would have been flooding the runway.
Until last year we were able to push gravel with heavy
equipment forming berms to stop the wave action. During last
year's storms we weren't able to do this because our equipment
began sinking in the gravel. This has never happened before. We
were unable to use vehicles and equipment to help monitor the
flooding. Simple things such as ATV four-wheelers sank into the
gravel. That's never happened before.
Unlike prior years we didn't know how much water was
actually coming over the beach into the lagoon due to the
sinking problem. You may be asking, why is this a concern? The
only way out of our community during these storms is to the
East on a 7-mile road that leads to our freshwater lake source.
We constantly monitor the road during each storm. If this road
is cut off due to flooding, we are stuck with nowhere to go.
Potentially, all life and property would be lost. Sometimes
during these storms the Kukpak River's outlet into the ocean
becomes sealed, then both the river and ocean begin filling and
flooding the lagoon compounding the problem. During the storms,
people begin to panic and worry, especially when we are unable
to even monitor the severity of the problem like last year.
What is of great concern is the possible loss of lives if we
don't get an evacuation road built.
How would building an evacuation road help our community?
First and foremost it would save lives in the event of
flooding. It will also provide access to an area where we would
be able to build a new runway. We all know that it is just a
matter of time before the current one is under water and we
will need a new one. We ask that you help us plan and build an
evacuation road.
Again, I would like to thank you for allowing my community
to be a part of this important hearing. We look forward to
hearing from you on behalf of our Tri-Lateral Committee. Our
village extends an open invitation to all of you. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rex Rock
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in this
important hearing today on behalf of our Tri-lateral Committee which
consists of our Native Village of Point Hope (tribal organization), the
City of Point Hope, and Tikigaq Corporation (Native corporation). I am
currently the Chief Executive Officer of Tikigaq Corporation and am
testifying on behalf of the Tri-lateral Committee.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Point Hope (Tikigaq) is the oldest continually inhabited community
in Northwest Alaska, which dates back to 600 B.C. Point Hope is
recognized nationally as a culturally relevant site (National Historic
Landmark). Today approximately 850 residents call Point Hope home. Our
population is primarily Inupiaq, or in the western culture referred to
as Eskimo. We are part of the North Slope Borough and are a second-
class city. Point Hope is a Bowhead whaling community. In fact, our
ancestors crossed the Siberian land bridge some 2,000 years ago to hunt
bowhead whales.
You might ask why emphasize the fact that we are a Bowhead whaling
community? Our community has many traditions surrounding our whaling
and if there is one thing it has taught us, it is that working as one
for our people you can accomplish great things. Our whaling culture is
so much a part of our daily life that our community synergy is defined
by it. Our community has worked together on our flooding issues and now
we need your help.
The Problems in Point Hope
We have noticed a lot of changes in the weather patterns in Point
Hope. The ice breaks up and leaves the shore a lot earlier then usual.
We have always had ice until July and now it is gone the first week of
June. In the fall the shore ice is late and often isn't there to
protect the shoreline when the fall storms hit. Storms are earlier with
larger and stronger wave patterns. Our underground ice cellars are not
as cold as they use to be. Some cellars that were built in permafrost
are now melting and full of water during the summer. Our beaches now
have runoffs either from the ocean or from the lagoon or lakes, which
makes the gravel a lot softer. Our runway has been in jeopardy of
flooding several times. Community members worry about evacuating in the
event of flooding.
What we have done as a community to address the problems
Over the past decade we realized that three separate organizations
working to obtain any assistance for funding projects was cumbersome
and likely to end unsuccessfully. Using common goals as our guiding
factor, the Tri-lateral Committee was formed in 2001. Quarterly
meetings are held and hosted by the different organizations. A list of
priority projects was created and the organizations have supported
working together as a method to target legislation and assistance from
the North Slope Borough, the State of Alaska and the Federal
Government.
The number one priority on the list is an evacuation road that
would lead to higher ground in case of flooding. This was the primary
concern of the community that came up at a variety of gatherings from
the Native Corporation's annual meetings to community meetings and
gatherings.
Tikigaq relocated back in the late 70's from the west side of our
runway to where it is today due to extreme flooding. Today we still
face flooding issues, mainly in the fall. The flooding occurs from
strong winds blowing out of the West and Northwest creating large waves
that bombard our North beach. Our North beach is about 12 miles long
and the south side is 18 miles long. The water actually reached the
North end of our runway last year.\1\ Flooding of the runway is a
growing concern for our community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Our runway lines up with the prevailing winds out of the
Northeast. The problem with this is that you are not always able to
land aircraft due to the crosswinds from the Northwest. This means that
in certain emergencies we may not be able to use the runway to evacuate
the community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until last year we are able to push gravel with heavy equipment, if
needed, to help slow the wave action and protect the beach and the
community.\2\ During last years storms, we weren't able to do this
because our equipment began sinking into the gravel, this has never
happened before. We were unable to use vehicles and equipment to help
monitor the flooding. Unlike prior years we didn't know how much water
was actually coming over the beach into the lagoon due to the sinking
problem. You may be asking why is this a concern? The only way out of
our community during these storms is to the East on a 7-mile road that
leads to our fresh water lake source. We constantly monitor the road
during each storm. If this road is cut off due to flooding, we are
stuck with nowhere to go. Potentially all life and property would be
lost. Sometimes during these storms the Kukpak rivers outlet into the
ocean becomes sealed then both the river and ocean begin filling and
flooding the lagoon compounding the problem. During the storms people
begin to panic and worry especially when we are unable to even monitor
the severity of the problem like last year. What is of great concern is
the possible loss of lives if we don't get an evacuation road built.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Some of the photos we submitted show burms we built out of the
beach gravel to protect our community. A subsequent photo shows that
our efforts failed and the burm was washed out to sea. About three
years prior to that, the water reached the west side of our runway and
the runway itself served as an actual barrier for our community. You
will also notice in some photos a partial seawall was built out of huge
rocks that were brought in from Nome. That wall has begun to wash out
as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
How would building an evacuation road help our community? First and
foremost it will save lives in the event of flooding. It will also
provide access to an area where we would be able to build a new runway.
We all know that it is just a matter of time before the current one is
under water and we will need a new one. Please help us plan and build
an evacuation road.
Again I would like to thank you for allowing my community to be a
part of this important hearing. We look forward to hearing from you and
on behalf of our Tri-lateral Committee. Our villages extends an open
invitation to all of you, know that you will be welcome in our
community at any time. If you have questions or comments feel free to
call either Rex Tuzroyluk, Jr., President of Native Village (368-2330),
Ronald Oviok, Sr., City Mayor (368-2537) or Sayers Tuzroyluk, Sr.,
Chairman Tikigaq Corp. (368-2235)
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. Your village was
moved in the past once, wasn't it, Mr. Rock?
Mr. Rock. That's correct, in the 1970s.
Chairman Stevens. The new location is on the other side--on
the upland side of the airport now?
Mr. Rock. Back then it was what the Borough could afford.
We moved on the east end of the runway, about 1\1/2\ miles.
Chairman Stevens. Have you surveyed out a site that if you
have to move you would prefer to move to?
Mr. Rock. Yes. It's higher ground and it's about 10 to 15
miles from where we currently are.
Chairman Stevens. Has the FAA or the State helped you
locate a new site for a runway?
Mr. Rock. No, they haven't.
Chairman Stevens. You have a traditional graveyard in your
area, don't you?
Mr. Rock. That's correct. It's marked by whale jawbones.
Chairman Stevens. Does your plan include moving that
graveyard?
Mr. Rock. Not currently, no. We just continually expand it,
you know.
Chairman Stevens. Didn't it suffer some erosion recently?
Mr. Rock. It's getting very close to that.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
Mr. Short, your area is the one area that has been
successful in obtaining the funds. I remember we worked on that
for a long time with the Corps of Engineers. You sound
satisfied with what the Corps of Engineers has done. Is that
right?
Mr. Short. For the most part, yes.
Chairman Stevens. Do you have plans for an extension of
that now? Are you asking the Corps to extend it further?
Mr. Short. 1,200 more feet.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you.
Ms. Vorderstrasse, I was in Barrow and it seems to me that
the beach is coming close now to your sewage containment pool
and also to your city landfill dump. Is that right?
Ms. Vorderstrasse. That's correct, Senator. It is very
close. We have one pump station which is very close to our
beach, and that pump station provides service to at least one-
third of our community. And our community center is very close
to the beach, and during the storms, as you've been seeing here
on the slides, it becomes a great concern.
And as you very well know, where Oliver Letuk's (ph) house
is on the bluffs--the erosion there--we have already moved some
of those houses once before. They are going to have to be
relocated here in the very near future.
Chairman Stevens. That's because of the melting of the
substructure in the permafrost, right?
Ms. Vorderstrasse. Correct.
Chairman Stevens. Has your city approved a relocation plan?
Ms. Vorderstrasse. No, we haven't. We work very closely
with the North Slope Borough in reference to plans such as
relocation and whatnot. We work with Mayor Ahmaogak. They're
adding to our runway. It's kind of a concern because of the
rapidness of the erosion and whatnot. Our runway is close to--
one end of it is going to be very close to our beach.
Chairman Stevens. Mr. Ivanoff, what's the situation with
regard to your runway? It's down closer to the sea than the
village.
Mr. Ivanoff. Yes, sir. In the flood of last fall part of
the fencing on the runway was eroded. The State DOT is coming
out with a project that will put in rock on the west side,
ocean side, and I'm not sure if they are going to build it up.
But they are in the process of upgrading the runway. But for
the most part, the runway--just a section of the runway, that's
correct.
Chairman Stevens. Mr. Burns, do you have any questions?
Senator Burns. I don't have any questions. The structure
we're going to have to change in order to do some of these
things. Knowing what your situation is, I don't have any
questions for you, but we're going to deal with the structure
on what will facilitate maybe getting you some help. That's
what we're dealing with right now. You've all got your
different challenges in your communities. It's good to hear
about those. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Senator Sununu.
Senator Sununu. I would be interested to know, in each of
your villages, what, if anything, has been done locally to try
to slow the erosion process and whether or not any of these
efforts, even in the short term, have been at all successful.
Mr. Short. I sort of talked about what we initially did
back in the 1980s was construct an 8,000-foot seawall. We're
currently looking at putting in another 1,200 feet, which would
give us just under 2 miles of seawall right in front of our
community. It's been very stable; we haven't lost any more land
since then.
The $4 million that Senator Stevens helped us get to extend
that 1,200 feet has been very helpful along with the other
funds.
Senator Sununu. That work was originally done in the 1980s?
Mr. Short. In the 1980s and throughout the 1990s. It has
been a continuous process to get there. I think probably Bethel
is one of the success stories, and we would be happy to share
any of that information.
Senator Sununu. What was the total, or what has been the
total cost of the seawall construction?
Mr. Short. Right now I think we're right around $28 million
with the new 1,200 feet.
Senator Sununu. It's along the river?
Mr. Short. Yes. We call it a seawall.
Ms. Vorderstrasse. The city of Barrow has used real huge
bags and they stuffed the bags with gravel, and then they put
them up against the bluffs and along the beach. And as you have
seen here on the slides, during the storms and even before the
storms they used a tractor to make berms of gravel, and that is
kind of our temporary seawall.
Senator Sununu. How successful has it been?
Ms. Vorderstrasse. Not very successful. Because as the
storms come in--and it just--the ocean just beats on those
bags, it beats beyond the bags, and the erosion is continuing
to where the--it's just creating another section in the back
and the waves that come in sometimes are greater than the
temporary sand berms that they built and they come onto our
road.
Senator Sununu. Is the labor and the organization for that
effort handled locally?
Ms. Vorderstrasse. It's handled by the North Slope Borough.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Ivanoff.
Mr. Ivanoff. In the back of my testimony you'll see some
pictures. On the first page you'll see a higher section of the
road built in the late 1970s that prevented water. The logs
that you see in these photos came out of the Yukon River. With
the tide they move north and they land up on our beaches there.
But the top photo shows the road that was built in the
1970s. The high part of that road has really seen some influx
from the ocean, but the southern end is 2 feet lower than the
higher part of the road and has water and debris going over the
top.
On erosion, you'll notice the gabion wall on the second
page of the pictures. It was constructed in 2000 and it has
been a major blessing, you know. There are problems with it.
You'll see on the bottom photo, the second page, the wire mesh
part is starting to break up. It has halted the erosion, but
we're worried about the longevity of the life of this product.
Senator Sununu. What was the total cost of the work done in
2000?
Mr. Ivanoff. It was in the area of $1 million.
Senator Sununu. And how was it funded?
Mr. Ivanoff. Through NRCS.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Rock?
Mr. Rock. We don't have anything that's been successful. In
the summer during these months, the corporation with the
Borough, loaned equipment and we have a lot of volunteers that
go and actually push gravel and push berms up to help protect
for the fall storms that we know are going to hit. They tried
at one time some rocks from Nome; they imported from Nome to
certain sections to see if that would work. That's getting
washed out. The runway itself that sits to the west of the
community serves as an actual barrier. The water came up to the
level of the runway and it stopped right there.
Senator Sununu. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. We thank you all very much. We are going
to go back with a lot more information than we had before.
Thank you very much for those photographs. They're helpful, Mr.
Ivanoff. I do appreciate that. We appreciate your coming to
give us the information we need to go back and try to work this
out. Thank you very much.
Our next panel is Dr. Joseph Suhayda, oceanic consultant;
Mr. Rexford from Kaktovik; Luci Eningowuk, Chairperson on
Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation; Enoch Adams, Chair from
Kivalina's Relocation Planning Committee; and Stanley Tom,
Tribal Liaison for Newtok Tribal Council.
Dr. Suhayda, if you will wait, we'll make you a separate
panel at the end. Okay?
Dr. Suhayda. Yes, that's fine.
Chairman Stevens. You're going to show us the Bastion.
Let's take a 5-minute break.
Senator Sununu is on a long distance call and he'll be in
in a minute, but I'm pleased to welcome Mr. Tom, Stanley Tom,
Tribal Liaison from Newtok; Mr. Enoch Adams from Kivalina,
their Relocation Planning Committee; Ms. Eningowuk, Chairperson
from Shishmaref; and Mr. Rexford, the tribal administrator from
Kaktovik.
The last witness has a little display, so we'll get with
him after the four of you. Let's start with you, Mr. Tom.
Thank you very much for coming.
STATEMENT OF STANLEY TOM, TRIBAL LIAISON, NEWTOK
TRADITIONAL COUNCIL
Mr. Tom. Thank you. My name is Stanley Tom. I serve on the
Newtok Traditional Council. I have been with the Newtok
Traditional Council since 1997 as president, before the Newtok
Traditional Council became contracted to Public Law 93-638. We
are fairly new with Public Law 93-638. It's our fourth year and
we are in the learning process.
Newtok Traditional Council had a 3-year agreement with the
Army Corps back in October 2001, and it was Planning Assistance
to State project with an agreement for cost-share study
relocation improvement. Ever since the agreement, I feel it's a
slow process and the Native Village of Newtok needs to lay out
the new village site at Nelson Island before erosion hits the
existing village.
The land exchange was finalized between the Newtok Native
Corporation and Fish and Wildlife Service on April 28, 2004, by
Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton.
The Army Corps of Engineers needs to speed up the new
village site. We had a previous meeting with the agencies and I
had a concern with the FAA. They said they would not build the
airport, only if we moved the village site, and it's way too
late to build an airport.
How will we ship the supplies to the new village site when
we start to build the town on the new site such as: The barge
landing area, water infiltration gallery area, the proposed
airport site, and the area of the proposed infrastructure for
roads and streets?
The ASCG made a proposed land use and transportation plan
for Newtok back in 2001 to BIA. During the BIA workshop I
checked our proposed planning list. We are at the bottom of the
list for the year 2020. That's way too late for the roads to be
built for the village site.
ASCG, Inc. also made a background for relocation report for
January 2004, and the report was sent to various agencies. We
had some replies from the background and relocation report. The
report covered the introduction, village characteristics, the
ocean problem, contained the erosion problem, statistical
analysis of the erosion rate. The average annual erosion rate
is about 62 to 130 feet per year. The existing barge landing is
being impacted by erosion now and by 2006 it will be gone.
Under my observation the existing airport will be impacted
in the year 2011 or less, because there are small lakes in that
area and in that area our water resource will be impacted
first.
The Department of Commerce and Economic Development will be
doing a community profile mapping of the existing and the new
relocation site, and I need both to be done as soon as
possible, especially the new village site so we can start
working on the environmental review record for the new village
site, also known as the National Environment Policy Act.
The Newtok Traditional Council needs to do a community
comprehensive planning for the new village site, and I just
finished a mini-grant for $30,000 from the State of Alaska. I
hope it will be approved because the Federal and State will not
appropriate any funds without a community comprehensive plan
for any planning funds.
The Newtok Traditional Council has approved its village
move by the Background for Relocation Report. We need to start
establishing the new site this year. If the Army Corps of
Engineers are not ready to start a new site, the Newtok
Traditional Council should hire an architect and engineer to
speed up the new village site. The problem is the Newtok
Traditional Council does not have any funding.
I know we made a 100 percent Federal partnership agreement
with the Army Corps of Engineers to assist us on the
development of our relocation effort.
There are three funds available. The first is the Planning
Assistance Program, Alaska Villages Erosion Technical
Assistance Program, and the Energy and Water Development
Appropriation Act.
I would like the full Senate Committee to speed up the
Newtok relocation to start on the village site before the
existing village is impacted by erosion.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you. We'll have some questions
later.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stanley Tom
My name is Stanley Tom, Tribal Liaison, for the Newtok Traditional
Council.
I have been working with Newtok Traditional Council since 1997 as
President, before the Newtok Traditional Council became contracted to
Public Law 93-638.
We're fairly new with Public Law 93-638, it's our 4th year and we
are in a learning process.
Newtok Traditional Council had a 3-year agreement with the Army
Corps back in October 2001, and it was Planning Assistance to State
(PAS) project with the agreement for cost-share study relocation
improvement project.
Ever since the agreement, I feel it's a slow process and Native
Village of Newtok needs to lay out the new village site at Nelson
Island, before the erosion hits the existing village.
The land exchange was finalized between the Newtok Native
Corporation and Fish and Wildlife on April 28, 2004 by Secretary of the
Interior Gale A. Norton.
The Army Corps of Engineers need to speed up the new village site.
We had a previous meeting with agencies, and I had a concern with the
FAA. They said they would not build the airport, only if we moved the
village site, and it's way too late to build an airport.
How will we ship the supplies to the new village site when we
started to build the Township or the new village site such as: barge
landing area, water infiltration gallery area, the proposed airport
site, and the area of the proposed village infrastructure area roads
and streets.
The ASCG, Inc. made a proposed land use and transportation plan for
Newtok village back in December of 2001 to Bureau of Indian Affairs.
During the BIA Providers Workshop, I checked on our proposed
transportation planning list. We are on the bottom list for fiscal year
2020. That's way too late for the roads to be built for the new village
site.
ASCG, Inc. also made a ``Background for Relocation report'' January
of 2004, and the report was sent to various agencies. We had some
replies from the background relocation report, the report covered the
introduction, village characteristics, summary of erosion problem, it
contained the erosion problem, statistical analysis of the erosion
rate, the average annual erosion rate is about 62 to 130 feet per year,
the existing barge landing is being impacted by the erosion now and by
2006 it will be gone.
Under my observation the existing airport will be impacted in the
year 2011 or less because there are small lakes in that area, and in
that area our water resource will be impacted first.
Department of Commerce and Economic Development will be doing a
community profile mapping of the existing and the new relocation site,
and I need both to be conducted as soon as possible, especially the new
village site so we can start working on the environmental review record
for the new village site.
The Newtok Traditional Council needs to do a community
comprehensive planning for the new village site, and I just finished a
mini-grant for $30,000 from the State of Alaska and I'm hoping it will
be approved, because the federal and the State will not appropriate any
funds without the community comprehensive planning for any planning
funds.
The Newtok Traditional Council has proved its village move by
``Background for Relocation Report.'' We need to start establishing the
new village site this year and if the Army Corps of Engineers are not
ready to start the new village site, then the Newtok Traditional
Council should hire an architect and engineers to speed-up the new
village site. The problem is that the Newtok Traditional Council does
not have any funding.
I know we made a 100 percent federal partnership agreement with the
Army Corps of Engineers to assist us on the development of our
relocation effort.
There are three funds available; first program is Planning
Assistance to State Program (PAS), Alaska Villages Erosion Technical
Assistance program (AVETA), and Energy and Water Development
Appropriation Act (EWDA).
I would like the full Senate Committee to speed-up the Newtok
relocation effort to start on the new village site, before the existing
village is impacted by the erosion.
Chairman Stevens. Mr. Adams. You are chair of the Kivalina
Relocation Planning Committee.
STATEMENT OF ENOCH ADAMS, JR., CHAIRMAN, KIVALINA
RELOCATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to
discuss the flooding and erosion issues affecting Kivalina. I'm
Enoch Adams, Jr., chairman of the Kivalina Relocation Planning
Committee.
With your permission, I would like to present background
information regarding our relocation efforts, the
misunderstandings that came about, and a possible solution
that's deemed necessary by the Kivalina Relocation Planning
Committee.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s the subject of relocation
was brought to Kivalina's attention because the Federal
Government would not build a water and sewage system due to the
former and current conditions of our community. At a joint
meeting of the city of Kivalina and the Native Village of
Kivalina, a decision was made by both entities to establish a
planning committee made up of local community members that had
various differing backgrounds to ensure that all segments of
the community would be represented. I was appointed to this
committee to represent the education community because I was a
teacher at the local high school at the time.
While I'm not currently a teacher, I'm still a member of
the committee as the local entities made one of the conditions
of the committee to be that the members serve in perpetuity so
that attrition of knowledge be held to a minimum. In other
words, the less new appointments are made, the less need for
educating new members.
Soon after the appointments were made, the Kivalina
Relocation Planning Committee was formally recognized by the
local entities and introduced to the community in 1996.
Shortly, the Northwest Arctic Borough was asked to become
involved as the lead entity because of the apparent lack of
resources as to how this whole relocation idea would be
implemented. Because of the mitigating costs recognized by the
Federal Government of building a water and sewer system at the
present site, the Alaska Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska
District was involved from the beginning.
Currently, we are in the eighth year of a 5-year planning
phase. This fact is largely due to the fact that all those
involved, including the Army Corps of Engineers, have never
done a comprehensive relocation project where an entire
community has been moved. Although some of those involved have
mentioned the fact that such a move is costly is the primary
reason for the length of time that this has taken.
According to the original timeline draft by the Corps,
construction of the site should have begun last summer, in
2003. But we are at some point in the last half of the planning
stage. And I have always believed that when the time comes for
seeking funds for this apparently ``daunting'' project, as the
GAO report has described it, we do have a legitimate reason to
ask for such funds. Because, beneath it all, the U.S.
Government does have the underpinnings of equity. It is that
sometimes which has to be brought to the surface by anyone
involved.
Over the years in countless meetings and discussions both
public and private by all those involved, some things have been
said that should not have been said, conclusions have been made
that are not accurate, especially about our people, and,
particularly, our community, which has brought some of us to
the point of not speaking at all. But those of us from Kivalina
will still continue to strive to have healthy discussions about
our needs, especially with this relocation effort. We are still
trying to help others understand where we as a community are
coming from.
I do not think that a blanket funding for the Alaskan
villages is wise. I believe every community's flooding and
erosion issues are so unique that they need to be dealt with
individually. My biggest fear regarding this is that some
community's, or communities', need, or needs, might be
overlooked. I think we all agree that an expanded role of the
Federal Government is necessary. We all agree, too, that the
cost/benefit analysis requirements need to be changed, maybe
even new ones be added.
I further believe that it is incumbent of us to remind the
Federal Government of its trust responsibility to tribes, which
brings me to my last point.
As you may understand why, I purposely did not go into
detail about the misunderstandings that resulted. I also need
to mention that yesterday some stated that they represent all
the villages in Alaska. I respectfully disagree with that
statement because what I further heard, I disagree with. And I
do not think I need to go into detail what it was because of
the solution I think that is needed.
In Kivalina we do have an excellent working relationship
with the Native Village of Kivalina. In the memorandum of
agreement between the city of Kivalina, the Native Village of
Kivalina, and the Northwest Arctic Borough, for some reason or
reasons only the Native Village of Kivalina has backed up its
responsibilities with both financial and staffing requests from
the KRPC. Because of certain Federal agencies' trust
responsibility to tribes, the Native Village of Kivalina is in
a unique position to work directly with the U.S. Congress.
I do not think an expanded role of the Denali Commission is
necessary because they may just end up repeating services that
can be capably done by the Native Village of Kivalina. I need
to mention that for several years the KRPC functioned very well
when we received funds through the Native Village of Kivalina
to hire a local relocation coordinator, which is called for in
the memorandum of agreement. I know that if this sort of
relationship is established with the Federal Government
regarding our village relocation, that the needs of our people
will be met.
Thank you for listening to my testimony, and I will try my
best to answer any questions that you may have.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.
Ms. Eningowuk.
STATEMENT OF LUCI ENINGOWUK, CHAIRPERSON, SHISHMAREF
EROSION AND RELOCATION COALITION
Ms. Eningowuk. The Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation
Coalition thanks you for this opportunity to testify before you
today.
I am Luci Eningowuk, Chairperson of the Coalition, which is
made up of the governing bodies of the city of Shishmaref, the
Native Village of Shishmaref, and the Shishmaref Native
Corporation. We have also representatives from the youth
council and the elder council. I wish to state that the elders
are an integral part of our planning.
Shishmaref is where it is because of what the ocean,
rivers, streams, and land provide to us. If the water and land
couldn't sustain us, we would have moved out long ago.
Subsistence is our economic base. Why do you work if not to
feed your families? Our grocery store is out there, in the
water and on the land. We are Shishmaref; we are Inupiaq
Natives. Subsistence is our way of life. We are hunters and we
are gatherers. Who and what we are is based on how we live and
the way we live. We have been here for countless generations.
We value our way of life; we value the environment as it
sustains us; it provides for our very existence.
I have been very fortunate in my life. I have traveled to
many places, including the home of our Federal Government,
Washington, DC. I have seen our national treasures. Shishmaref,
too, is a national treasure. But right now we are holding on as
we watch the sea eat away at everything we, and you, have
built.
We are proud people. It is very difficult for us to ask for
your assistance, but we do ask for it, for our very existence,
for my people. Please remember that we are your people, too. I
am here to ask for your help.
We have provided a packet for you with additional
information, photos, and a CD with a video file of the November
2003 storm.
I plan to address four points that are important to the
Village of Shishmaref. They are relocation of the existing
community to the mainland, ongoing beach erosion and efforts to
minimize its impact, lack of funding for immediate
infrastructure needs, and the need for State and Federal multi-
agency coordination.
The Coalition is committed to the relocation of the
community. A relocation project is underway and is currently in
its early planning stage. The relocation project must be
completed as the integrity of our community is dependent upon
it.
Our goal for the project is to provide expedited relocation
of the community to the mainland. Within this effort the
project must provide both a safe place to live and conditions
that support the subsistence lifestyle for the people of
Shishmaref. The people of Shishmaref are committed to keeping
our community intact and we are committed to our heritage,
which includes the subsistence way of life passed on to us by
our ancestors.
The community was established as a year-round settlement as
a result of the introduction of Government services, including
education and health care. Also, tribal members moved within
our traditional lands for the subsistence harvest. We, like our
ancestors, follow the seasons.
Every year, until the protective winter pack ice returns,
we agonize whether the next storm will be the one that wipes us
out. To date, we have lost numerous buildings and boats, an
ATV, snow machines, meat-drying racks and buried food.
Tragically, we have lost one home. So far we have been able to
move 18 threatened homes to the National Guard Armory building.
Moving these structures is a labor-intensive process. We are
quickly running out of space on our ever-shrinking island.
The community of Shishmaref had determined that the threat
to life from reoccurring beachfront erosion required immediate
action.
I want to cover my points; I have four.
One, relocation of the existing community to the mainland.
The community has expressed and reconfirmed its desire to
retain community integrity through relocation. Overwhelming
support was shown through a community-wide vote held on July
10, 2002. The community and Coalition would like to stress the
immediacy of the problem and continue to push for an expedited
relocation of Shishmaref to a place on the nearby mainland
location, Tin Creek.
The Coalition, with the support of the Kawerak, has to date
coordinated a significant number of agencies, including the
National Resources Conservation Service. I wish to take a
moment to thank NRCS for their work in assessing suitable
relocation sites. Their resource team has shown the greatest
respect of our needs and has proven that working with a high
level of cooperation is possible. With the assistance of the
NRCS we have narrowed the search for our mainland location.
Others that we have worked with include the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Alaska Department of Community and Economic
Development, and local and regional entities. Our experience
has shown that there's a lack of continuity between the various
Federal and State agencies and programs. There is an extensive
amount of executive branch interpretation.
For the most part we have found that none of the agencies
have programs that cover a full range of our needs. Matching
requirements in many cases are exorbitant, precluding us from
qualifying for assistance, as Shishmaref has no viable funding
source.
Our community is heavily reliant on subsistence, as are
most rural Alaskan communities. Our diet is based on the
animals and plants found nearby. Relocation of our community to
an area away from our home territory would have a devastating
effect on how we exist and who we are.
Consolidation with another community is not acceptable as
it will cause extensive competition for subsistence foods and
depletion of natural resources. Our way of life is centered
around subsistence; it is the driving force of our existence.
This is illustrated by the scattering of Alaska Native villages
across the State.
The no-action option for Shishmaref is the annihilation of
our community by dissemination. We are a community tied
together by family, common goals, values, and tradition. We are
different from our neighbors. The community of Shishmaref has a
long and proud history. We are unique and need to be valued as
a national treasure by the people of the United States. We
deserve the attention and help of the American people and the
Federal Government.
Our plight has attracted statewide, national, and
international attention. To date we have provided information
to numerous media organizations. The international press is
particularly interested to know what the Federal Government is
doing to help us.
Two, ongoing beach erosion and efforts to minimize its
impact.
The use of Federal funds places a requirement for advance
planning. This requirement precludes an immediate relocation as
an intact community, because we anticipate that even an
expedited relocation will take years to prepare for. In the
meantime, we continue to seek assistance to provide shoreline
protection for the immediate community. Our Strategic
Relocation Plan for resettlement is anticipated to begin by
2009.
Kawerak, our regional nonprofit tribal government
consortium applied for and built on our behalf a 450-foot armor
rockgabion seawall. The funding came from the Indian
Reservation Roads, IRR, program which allows 100 percent
Federal funding. Nineteen villages that participated in
Kawerak's program helped to fund our project with funds
identified for their benefit by the IRR program.
We have been approved for a section 14, emergency shoreline
protection project with the Army Corps of Engineers. The
project is to provide protection for the shoreline in front of
our school, approximately 230 feet. The section 14 has a $1
million Federal cap and requires a 35 percent match. The State
has committed to provide the local match for this project;
however, it is very difficult for the State to come up with
funding for these projects. Therefore, we request that the
Federal Government waive the cost-share requirement for the
Alaska Native village projects associated with flooding and
erosion.
In addition, Shishmaref has worked closely with the State
to find additional funding to protect an additional 3,000 feet
of the community. The legislature has put $2 million in
appropriations, but the appropriation is not yet finalized.
These funds are intended to provide for local match to Federal
programs. We continue to have serious concerns that these funds
would be required to go toward feasibility studies instead of
construction.
We recommend that Federal programs designed to help
communities at risk must be redesigned by Congress to minimize
burdensome planning requirements. The emphasis must be on
funding actual construction. In addition, amendments to
legislation must be written that consider the ability of a
community to fund the local match or the local match
requirement should be allowable.
Disaster programs are designed to do cleanup after the
emergency rather than allocating funds for prevention. Both the
State and Federal agencies have told us they couldn't provide
assistance until a disaster declaration has been made. The
declaration itself requires a dollar value for the damage. In
our case, because no value is provided for the lost land and
because we have been able to take homes out of harm's way, we
don't qualify. Alaska Natives don't have the infrastructure
found elsewhere in the United States; therefore, there is
little value assessed when there are losses within Alaska's
rural communities.
Three, lack of funding for immediate and future
infrastructure needs.
Shishmaref does not have modern water and sewer.
Honeybucket haul systems are located in front of every two to
four homes. The city hauls these containers to the landfill 1.5
miles to the west end of the island. In 2002 shortly after the
community voted to relocate, we learned that the agencies who
had previously identified infrastructure projects for
Shishmaref would no longer provide us with assistance, such as
a new clinic, tank farm, water and sewer. We believe that the
decision made by funding agencies to either assist or not needs
to take into consideration the human impacts.
Alaska Village Electric, AVEC, designed our tank farm
project so that it could be relocated, however, this was not
acceptable to the funding agency, the Denali Commission. We
prefer that the water and sewer project be reserved for our
relocation site. Haphazard actions and decisions have far-
reaching negative social and economic impacts.
Currently, there is no infrastructure at the new site. We
request assistance to build an emergency evacuation building at
the Tin Creek relocation site, a structure that would be the
command center and provide room for evacuation offices, clinic,
school, and warehouse for emergency supplies should the island
have to be evacuated. Continued development of current basic
essential health and sanitation needs must be done. The
community needs a healthy environment.
We don't know the actual costs to relocate the village. We
believe that much of the infrastructure that will be needed for
the new location has been moved from our current location.
Because of this, the deferred infrastructure development that
would have been needed on the island, roads, clinic, water,
sewer, et cetera, should be considered in the equation of
calculating the costs of relocation.
Four, the need for State and Federal multi-agency
coordination.
The process of relocating an entire community requires
extensive inter-agency cooperation and coordination. There is
currently no one agency stepping forward to take the lead. To
be blunt, no agency's programs are designed to provide for a
project as complex as a full village relocation. Each agency
has its own responsibility, and often there is a gap in
responsibility from program to program.
We have reviewed the GAO report completed in December 2003
and we encourage you to consider their recommendations. We
strongly agree that the coordinated effort to address issues
caused by erosion and flooding of the threatened Alaska Native
villages is necessary. We believe that whichever agency is
assigned to lead the effort, it must be one that has proven
itself to be reliable in addressing the needs of Alaska Native
villages.
The situation facing Shishmaref needs to be categorized as
an emergency, and overly burdensome Federal regulations must be
eased. Many Federal requirements drive up the costs. We believe
that the relocation could be accomplished at a significantly
reduced cost if the agencies were allowed to act under
emergency exceptions and if the agencies were not required to
implement overly burdensome feasibility studies and cost-
benefit analysis. We are not requesting a lessening of the
engineering or NEPA requirements, but an approach that utilizes
common sense.
The GAO report provides excellent recommendations to
address the needs of Alaska Native villages threatened by
erosion and flooding. We urge Congress to take action based on
their report. However, our situation is urgent. We are unlikely
to survive until new statutes, regulations, or policies can be
developed and implemented.
Because of this, we request that Shishmaref be identified
as a demonstration project with maximum flexibility authorized
and that it be used to help determine what changes are needed
in the statutes, regulations, and policies overall.
Shishmaref does not have the necessary internal
administrative capacity to facilitate such a massive effort
without additional funding and technical assistance. Kawerak
provides staff support and facilitation to Shishmaref, but is
limited primarily to the transportation components of the
relocation. Shishmaref requests additional assistance from the
Federal Government.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify before you and
to share with you my home, Shishmaref.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. Excellent statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Luci Eningowuk
The Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition thank you for this
opportunity to testify before you today. I am Luci Eningowuk,
Chairperson of the Coalition. The Coalition is made up of the governing
bodies of the City of Shishmaref and the Native Village of Shishmaref
(the federally recognized tribe), and the board of the Shishmaref
Native Corporation. We have provided a packet for you today with
additional information, photos, and a CD with a video file of the
November 2003 storm.
I plan to address four points that are important to the community
of Shishmaref. They are: (1) relocation of the existing community to
the mainland; (2) ongoing beach erosion and efforts to minimize its
impact; (3) lack of funding for immediate infrastructure needs; and (4)
the need for state and federal multi-agency coordination.
The Coalition is committed to the relocation of the community. A
relocation project is underway and is currently in its early planning
stage. The relocation project must be completed, as the integrity of
our community is dependent upon it. Our goal for the project is to
provide for an expedited relocation of the community to the mainland.
Within this effort, the project must provide both a safe place to live
and conditions that support the subsistence life style for the people
of Shishmaref. The people of Shishmaref are committed to keeping our
community intact, and we are committed to preserving our heritage,
which includes the subsistence way of life passed on to us by our
ancestors.
Before I begin, on behalf of the Coalition, I must commend the
United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), for their work in assessing suitable relocation sites.
Their research team has shown the greatest respect of our needs, and
has proven that working with a high level of cooperation is possible.
To date, the NRCS has assessed nine sites identified by the community.
With their assistance, we have narrowed the search for a mainland
location.
Introduction--Background
The community of Shishmaref is situated on a barrier island no
wider than one-quarter of a mile and 3 miles in length. Shishmaref is
located approximately 20 miles south of the Arctic Circle and 50 miles
northeast of the Bering Strait. The community is home to 600 people
mostly consisting of Inupiaq Natives. The community is a traditional
native village that is heavily reliant on subsistence lifestyle
activities based in and around the Chukchi Sea. The local economy is
subsistence based, supplemented by part-time and seasonal jobs, and the
sale of traditional arts and crafts.
The community, was established as a year round settlement, as a
result of the introduction of government services including education
and health care. Prior to this, tribal members moved within our
traditional lands for the subsistence harvest. Our ancestors followed
the seasons, moving from the rivers and streams, to the coast, and then
on to the coastal islands. This tradition is still followed today.
Our subsistence lifestyle takes us to our camps in numerous
locations along the mainland and coastal islands. We travel by
snowmachine over the ice and by boat when the ice is no longer safe.
Our primary subsistence foods include: bearded seal, walrus, fish
(salmon, white fish, trout, and herring) moose, musk-oxen, caribou,
ducks, geese, ptarmigan, berries (salmon berries, blackberries,
blueberries, and cranberries), and assorted greens. To preserve the
fish and meat, we hang it on drift wood racks to dry. Many of our
residents store their food in the permafrost to provide natural cold
storage. Subsistence foods are also stored in containers of seal oil,
which is a natural preservative.
The land under Shishmaref is a fine, silty sand that is highly
vulnerable to erosion. Permafrost is prevalent throughout the area and
normally is found at a depth of 3 feet. The permafrost binds the moist
sand together and helps slow the rate of erosion. On average, the
island's northern shore has experienced erosion of 3-5 feet per year.
Higher rates of erosion were experienced during the storms of: November
9th and 10th, 1973; October 4th, 1997; October 7th, 2001; and most
recently November 21st and 22nd, 2003. During these storms, highly
susceptible areas had losses of as much as 125 feet horizontal
distance.
Every year, until the protective winter pack ice returns, we
agonize that the next storm will be the one that wipes us out. To date,
we have lost numerous storage buildings and boats, an ATV, 2
snowmachines (snowmobile), meat-drying racks, and buried food.
Tragically we have lost 1 home; so far we have been able to move 18
threatened homes and the National Guard Armory. Moving the structures
is a labor-intensive process, which includes placing the structure on
beams, hooking them up with heavy chains, and dragging them to a safer
location on the island utilizing available heavy equipment. However,
those of us living here know, that it is merely a matter of time before
we experience greater losses. We are quickly running out of space on
our ever-shrinking island.
We experience erosion creeping in from both the southern lagoon
side and the northern Chukchi Sea side of the island. High tide is 3
feet higher than the normal tide. During high tide storms, the wave
action can increase an additional 3 feet or more above the high tide.
The impact to the island is that more of the exposed bluff is in direct
contact with the water, erosion is accelerated, more of the bluff is
undercut, and in many locations the waves crest over the bluff.
The community of Shishmaref had determined that the threat to life
and property from reoccurring beachfront erosion required immediate
action. The community established the Erosion and Relocation Coalition.
The makeup of the Coalition is the governing members of the City of
Shishmaref and the Native Village of Shishmaref (Indian Reorganization
Act), the board of the Shishmaref Native Corporation, along with
representation from the Elder and Youth Councils. The Coalition was
formed to provide a unified community voice, One People, One Voice, to
seek assistance in providing immediate erosion protection for the
island while we focus our efforts on relocation to the mainland.
Shishmaref is not alone; other Alaska Native Villages are facing a
significant threat from ongoing global climate changes. Areas that have
in the past been protected by our durable permafrost are now at risk.
More and more communities are reporting problems with persistent
erosion and flooding.
Relocation of the existing community to the mainland
The situation at Shishmaref is dire, and we believe that a disaster
is pending that will cause loss of life and property. The rate of
erosion and the number of flooding events has accelerated. Even though
the storms have been moderate in level, the damage is more severe in
recent years. The community has expressed and reconfirmed its desire to
retain community integrity through relocation. Overwhelming support was
shown through a community wide vote held on July 10, 2002. The
community and Coalition would like to stress the immediacy of the
problem and continue to push for an expedited relocation of Shishmaref
to a safe place on the nearby mainland location--Tin Creek.
The Coalition, with the support of Kawerak, Inc., has to date
coordinated and communicated with: NRCS, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Alaska Division of Emergency
Services, the National Park Service, the Alaska Native Health
Consortium, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land
Management, the Bering Straits Native Corporation, the Bering Straits
Regional Housing Authority, the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative,
Tel-Alaska, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, Housing and Urban Development, the Alaska Federation of
Natives, the State House and Senate, and we have worked with our Alaska
congressional delegation. Our experience has shown that there is a lack
of continuity between the various federal and State programs and
agencies. There is an extensive amount of executive branch
interpretation. For the most part, we have found that none of the
agencies have programs that cover the full range of our needs. Matching
requirements, in many cases are exorbitant, precluding us from
qualifying for assistance, as Shishmaref has no viable funding source.
Our community is heavily reliant on subsistence, as are most rural
Alaska Native Communities. Our diet is based on the animals and plants
found nearby. Relocation of our community to an area away from our home
territory would have a devastating impact on how we exist and who we
are. Consolidation with another community is not acceptable, as it will
cause extensive competition for subsistence foods, and depletion of
natural resources. Our way of life is centered around subsistence; it
is the driving force of our existence. This is illustrated by the
scattering of Alaska Native Villages across the State.
The no action option for Shishmaref is the annihilation of our
community by dissemination. We are a community tied together by family,
common goals, values, and traditions. We are different from our
neighbors. The community of Shishmaref has a long and proud history. We
are unique, and need to be valued as a national treasure by the people
of the United States. We deserve the attention and help of the American
people and the federal government.
Our plight has attracted statewide, national, and international
attention. To date, we have provided information to the following media
organizations; regional media, AP Wire, Anchorage Daily News, KTUU
Channel 2--Anchorage, Alaska Public Radio, The New York Times, People
Magazine, The New Yorker Magazine, National Geographic, The Weather
Channel, plus several international media groups from Canada, Britain,
Japan, France, Germany, Norway, and the calls keep coming. The
international press is particularly interested to know what the federal
government is doing to help us.
Ongoing beach erosion and efforts to minimize its impact
The use of federal funds places a requirement for advance planning.
This requirement precludes an immediate relocation as an intact
community. Because of this, we anticipate that even an expedited
relocation will take years to prepare for. In the meantime, we continue
to seek assistance to provide shoreline protection for the immediate
community. Our Strategic Relocation Plan for resettlement is
anticipated to begin by 2009.
Kawerak, Inc. our regional non-profit tribal government consortium
applied for and built on our behalf, a 450 foot armor rock gabion
seawall. The funding came from the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR)
program (23 U.S.C 200-204), which allows 100 percent federal funding.
Nineteen villages that participate in Kawerak's program helped to fund
our project, with funds identified for their benefit under the IRR
program. The project was developed to protect the main street in the
community and the road to the airport, at their locations closest to
the threatened bluff. Five barges of rock were brought in from Cape
Nome. Kawerak barged in heavy equipment and used local labor to build
the project. The cost of the project was in excess of $2 million.
Kawerak attempted to develop a cooperative project with the Army Corps
of Engineers, but found that the Corps' programs would have used all
funds as local match for federally required feasibility studies (a
requirement under a majority of the Corps' programs). There was too
great a risk that the Corps would find that the project was not in the
best interest of the federal government. With the village's immediate
plight, the decision was made for Kawerak to go forward to plan,
design, and construct the 450 foot seawall. From the time of this
decision, it took approximately 2 years to develop and build the
project. Kawerak worked closely with Shishmaref, the Corps, the NRCS,
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the development of the project.
We have been approved for a Section 14, Emergency Shoreline
Protection Project with the Army Corps of Engineers. The project is to
provide protection for the shoreline in front of our school,
approximately 230 feet. The Section 14 has a $1 million federal cap and
requires a 35 percent match. The State has committed to provide the
local match for this project. We request that the federal government
waive the local cost share requirements for Alaska Native Village
projects associated with flooding and erosion.
In addition, Shishmaref has worked closely with the State to find
additional funding to protect an additional 3,000 feet of the
community. The legislature has put $2 million into appropriations, but
the appropriation is not yet final. These funds are intended to provide
for local match to Federal programs. However, we continue to have
serious concerns that these funds would be required to go towards
feasibility studies instead of construction. We recommend that federal
programs designed to help communities at risk, must be redesigned by
Congress to minimize burdensome planning requirements. The emphasis
must be placed on funding actual construction. In addition, amendments
to legislation must be written that considers the ability of a
community to fund the local match, waiving the local match requirement
should be allowable.
Disaster programs are designed to do cleanup after the emergency,
rather then allocating funds for prevention. Both the State and federal
agencies have told us they couldn't provide assistance until a
``Disaster Declaration'' has been made. The declaration itself requires
a dollar value for the damage. In our case, because no value is
provided for the lost land, and because we have been able to tug homes
out of harms way, we don't qualify. Alaska Native Villages don't have
the infrastructure found elsewhere within the United States, therefore
there is little value assessed when there are losses within Alaska's
rural communities.
Lack of funding for immediate and future infrastructure needs
Shishmaref does not have modern water and sewer. The City hauls
water to individual homes where there are interior storage tanks
ranging in capacity from 32-200 gallons. Honey bucket haul systems
(septic handling), with a capacity of 200 gallons, are located in front
of every 2-4 homes. The City hauls these containers to the landfill 1.5
miles to the west end of the island. In 2002, shortly after the
community voted to relocate, we learned that agencies who had
previously identified infrastructure projects for Shishmaref would no
longer provide us with assistance (new clinic, tank farm, water and
sewer). We believe the decision made by funding agencies to either
assist or not, needs to take into consideration the human impacts. We
had passed an ordinance that required that all new construction must be
moveable. Alaska Village Electric (AVEC) had designed our tank farm
project so that it could be relocated, however, this was not acceptable
to the funding agency, the Denali Commission. We prefer that the water
and sewer project be reserved for our relocation site. Haphazard
actions and decisions have far reaching negative social and economic
impacts.
Currently, there is no infrastructure at the new site. We request
assistance to build an emergency evacuation building at the Tin Creek
Relocation Site. A structure that would be the command center and
provide room for evacuation offices, clinic, school, and warehouse for
emergency supplies, should the island have to be evacuated. Continued
development of current basic essential health and sanitation needs must
be done. The community needs a healthy environment.
We don't know the actual costs to relocate the village. We believe
that much of the infrastructure that will be needed for the new
location has been deferred from our current location. Because of this,
the deferred infrastructure development that would have been needed on
the island (roads, clinic, water and sewer, etc.) should be considered
in the equation of calculating the costs for the relocation.
The need for state and federal multi-agency coordination
The process of relocating an entire community requires extensive
interagency cooperation and coordination. There is currently no one
agency stepping forward to take the lead. To be blunt, no agency's
programs are designed for a project as complex as a full village
relocation. Each agency has its realm of responsibility, and often
there is a gap in responsibility program to program. We have reviewed
the GAO report (GAO-04-142) completed in December 2003 and encourage
you to consider their recommendations. We strongly agree that a
coordinated effort to address issues caused by erosion and flooding of
the threatened Alaska Native Villages is necessary. We believe that
whichever agency is assigned to lead the effort, must be one that has
proven itself to be proactive in addressing the needs of Alaska Native
Villages.
The situation facing Shishmaref needs to be categorized as an
emergency. Overly burdensome federal regulations must be eased. Many of
the federal requirements drive up the costs. We believe that the
relocation could be accomplished at a significantly reduced cost if the
agencies were allowed to act under emergency exceptions, and if the
agencies were not required to implement overly burdensome feasibility
studies and cost benefit analysis. We are not requesting a lessening of
the engineering or NEPA requirements but an approach that utilizes
common sense.
The GAO report provides excellent recommendations to address the
needs of Alaska Native Villages threatened by erosion and flooding. We
urge Congress to take action based on their report. However, our
situation is urgent, we are unlikely to survive until new Statutes,
Regulations, or Policies can be developed and implemented. Because of
this, we request that Shishmaref be identified as a demonstration
project with maximum flexibility authorized, and that it be used to
help determine what changes are needed in the Statutes, Regulations,
and Policies overall.
Shishmaref does not have the necessary internal administrative
capacity to facilitate such a massive effort without additional funding
and technical assistance. Kawerak, Inc. provides staff support and
facilitation to Shishmaref, but is limited primarily to the
transportation components of the relocation. Shishmaref requests
additional assistance from the federal government.
Conclusion
Shishmaref is where it is because of what the ocean, rivers,
streams, and the land provide to us. If the land and water couldn't
sustain us, we would have moved on long ago. Subsistence is our
economic base; why do you work if not to feed your families? Our
grocery store is out there, in the water and on the land.
We are Shishmaref, we are Inupiaq Natives. Subsistence is our way
of life, we are hunters and we are gatherers. Who and what we are is
based on where we live and the way we live. We have been here for
countless generations. We value our way of life, we value the
environment as it sustains us; it provides for our very existence.
I have been very fortunate in my life; I have traveled to many
places including the home of our federal government, Washington, D.C. I
have seen our national treasures. Shishmaref too, is a national
treasure. But, right now, we are barely holding on, as we watch the sea
eat away at everything we, and you, have built.
We are a proud people, it is very difficult for us to ask for your
assistance. But we do ask for it, for our very existence, for my
people, please remember, that we are your people too, I am here today
to ask for your help.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today, and to
share with you about my home, Shishmaref.
Shishmaref Measurements 06-14-04
1--Tannery Building
2--Cottage Building
3--Charlene Ningealook
4--Alfred Pootoogooluk
5--Archie Kiyutelluk
6--Jim/Janet Barr
7--Alvin Pootoogooluk Sr.
8--Bill Jones
9--East--Bulk Tank
10--West--Bulk Tank
11--Margie Ningealook
12--Winfred Obruk
13--Nora Kuzuguk
14--Jenny Kuzuguk
15--Red School
16--Blue School
17--Native Store Warehouse
18--Lloyd Kiyutelluk
19--Shelton Kokeok
20--Signa Kokeok
21--Nathan Weyiouanna
Current estimated beach line:
Measurement edge to building
PHomes moved 2002
SHISHMAREF EROSION MEASUREMENTS 2001-2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance from
Location Edge Fall July 1, 2002 Loss November Loss November Loss June 14, Loss
2001 11, 2003 25, 2003 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tannery:
Tannery Bldg................................................... 124 122.5 1.5 118 4.5 118 0 117 1
Cottage Industry............................................... 64 61 3 57 4 57 0 54 3
Houses:
Charlene Ningealook............................................ 300 300 0 258 42 255 3 250 5
Alfred Pootoogooluk............................................ 205 205 0 201 4 200 1 195 5
Archie Kiyutelluk.............................................. 200 200 0 188 12 172 16 172 0
Jim/Janet Barr................................................. 190 190 0 144 46 144 0 144 0
Alvin Pootoogooluk Sr.......................................... 195 195 0 195 0 195 0 195 0
Bill Jones..................................................... 90 90 0 72 18 66 6 58 8
Bulk Tanks:
East........................................................... 65 65 0 57 8 31 26 30 1
West........................................................... 69 69 0 61 8 25 36 24 1
Houses:
Margie Ningealook.............................................. 105 104 1 86 18 60 26 60 0
Winfred Obruk.................................................. 105 94 11 67 27 67 0 67 0
Nora Kuzuguk................................................... 100 89 11 67 22 58 9 52 6
Jenny Kuzuguk.................................................. 100 89 11 75 14 66 9 53 13
Red School..................................................... 72 66 6 42 24 20 22 16 4
Blue School.................................................... 47.5 38 9.5 17 21 17 0 17 0
Native Store: Warehouse........................................ 50 50 0 ........... 50 ........... 0 ........... 0
Houses:
Lloyd Kiyutelluk............................................... 66 66 0 61 5 57 4 43 14
Shelton Kokeok................................................. 55 55 0 32 23 31 1 21 10
Signa Kokeok................................................... 117 117 0 91 26 90 1 80 10
Nathan Weyiouanna.............................................. 65.5 65.5 0 13 53 5 8 1 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking west from center of town
Teachers quarters
Center of town beach front
Center of town looking east
Homes and drying racks
West end permafrost exposed and melting
Final work Kawerak Seawall Project--450 feet
Chairman Stevens. Mr. Rexford.
STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN REXFORD, TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIVE VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK
Mr. Rexford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. Thank you very much for giving Kaktovik the
opportunity to give you at least an oral understanding of the
things that are happening there in Kaktovik as far as erosion
is concerned.
I just want to touch on three things that are affecting the
people of Kaktovik. We are working with the Department of
Defense. The Air Force is working to protect the landfill that
has been capped that was used since 1947 by the military, and
this is a serious situation that we are finding that needs
improvement. We want to continue working with the Air Force on
the restoration advisory committee or restoration advisory
board with the Air Force.
The other project that we are working on at this time with
the North Slope Borough is the FAA master plan on the airport
relocation. The location has not been selected yet, but we are
just commencing a government-to-government relation with the
FAA that just started this past week. We also are working on a
government-to-government relation with the Department of
Defense to work on the various--couple of issues that really
affect our people.
My name is Franklin Rexford. I'm the Tribal Administrator
of the Native Village of Kaktovik. I was born and raised in
Kaktovik. I have been outside for higher education. I've been
working with the Native Village since 1970. I've grown up and
seen that our coastline has been affected.
In 1914 several Canadian archaeologists and anthropologists
excavated numerous cabins and graves, and I'm glad that they
took the ones on the runway. In 1914 there were 76 things that
were excavated with over 3,000 specimens saved in Canada. I was
going to say that those at least have been saved--the military,
when they built a runway, built it on the barrier island there.
So we are fortunate the Canadian explorers to excavate and at
least save a few specimens.
In conjunction with that, there is an island called Airy
(ph) Island. It's a point where it's called ``a place to go
listen.'' It's a local treasure or historical treasure and has
not been logged under the U.S. historical sites and places. We
are sitting here and we're worrying about the artifacts and
archaeology and our history on that part.
But one important thing is the landfill. We know that the
military in 1947 came to Barter Island and started a landfill.
It's right on the bluff. They built about three or four berms
to try to prevent--in front of the landfill where the gravel is
gathering, it's about half a mile further away from where they
wanted the gravel to build up because of the landfill that's
there. God knows what's in there; PCB, lead paint, all kinds of
stuff that the military dumped and it's right on the bluff.
So they built these berms, building up gravel at another
location. What they should have done is put it a little bit
further west of the landfill and probably could have put a lot
more gravel or more protection for the landfill. So that's our
concern, because that landfill is about 300 yards from where we
land or butcher our whales.
We're allowed--we're a whaling community, and the west side
of where we butcher our whales there's all the debris and
stuff, garbage collecting along the beach. So that is a very
serious situation we want to continue working with and maybe
provide more funding to cap our--dig up all that garbage and
get rid of that. It's just going to keep happening. The stuff
that they have now is working, but it's being damaged every
year.
So the military has spent several hundred, maybe millions
of dollars trying to protect that landfill. The airport, you
heard--got written testimony on the airport from the FAA on the
Kaktovik hub. The airport is owned by the military. It's leased
by the Borough where they operate and lease the airport, but
it's prone to flooding every year now. You can see that every
year. But the runway has to be closed down 2 or 3 days of the
year because of the weather.
We've seen the stuff that they put on the honeycombs and
the 55-gallon barrels, those are rotting out, and they really
need to close that down. We are working with the FAA to
relocate the airport. The villages were moved in 1947 when the
military came in and in 1964, so we were fortunate we moved in
1964, otherwise our houses and infrastructure would probably be
falling off like Shishmaref or Kivalina or other places.
So we're fortunate on that end. But our runway and landfill
are the two most serious impacts to our village as far as
health is concerned. The landfill is very serious and the FAA
is working with the village to try and find the most economical
place to build an airport.
In light of that, I'll just summarize that there are three
islands that I am concerned about. I'm concerned about the
airport relocation, the landfill with the military, and our
local historical treasures that haven't been made up with
historical sites and places like Point Hope has. So with that--
Senator Murkowski asked for words on the Corps of Engineers.
We are working with the folks there. We are fortunate to
work with the Department of Defense Restoration Advisory Board,
we've worked with the Corps and the DEC and the people of
Kaktovik. So we're watching the cleanup and we're keeping an
eye on the landfill and we're concerned about the runway.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. The water on the
runway is coming from the ocean, from the Arctic Ocean?
Mr. Rexford. Yes. There is a barrier island north of the
runway, but there's a channel where with the storm surge we get
the strong west winds and it floods the east end of the runway.
Chairman Stevens. And that's still under lease from the Air
Force?
Mr. Rexford. Yes. The military people own the runway.
Chairman Stevens. Who built the landfill?
Mr. Rexford. The military. With the airport, if they're
going to relocate, they have to move the landfill 2 miles away
from the airport and where they selected is near the beach.
Chairman Stevens. The landfill you're talking about is the
one that was built by the Air Force?
Mr. Rexford. Yes, built by the military and it's closing.
Chairman Stevens. Mr. Tom, you're one of the areas that's
listed as being critical by the GAO.
Mr. Tom. Yes, sir.
Chairman Stevens. And are you working with the Corps now on
a plan?
Mr. Tom. Yes, sir.
Chairman Stevens. You indicated you have a background for
relocation report.
Mr. Tom. Yes, we do.
Chairman Stevens. You prepared that?
Mr. Tom. Yes, I did, with the BIA's help. I knew it had to
be done to prove the Newtok--the erosion impact. The village
vote--we selected five sites and we discussed them for about 20
years, and now we had our last vote back in August 2003. The
majority voted for Nelson Island.
Chairman Stevens. This answers one of the questions that
Senator Burns had about the location with regard to the bluff.
Can you tell us on this where is the site for the new--the
new site for the village?
Mr. Tom. It's on Nelson Island, on the peak of Nelson
Island. In this map you can't see it, but it's--you can see the
river here. Nelson is about here (indicating). It's about 45
miles from this existing to Nelson Island.
Chairman Stevens. Is the community in agreement about that
site for relocation?
Mr. Tom. I didn't hear you, sir.
Chairman Stevens. Has the community agreed to that site for
relocation?
Mr. Tom. Yes, we have. We have the vote. The people voted
on the back of the page and we have all the agencies. We used
the public-involved survey questionnaires, and we have a--we
answered questions on the site that they selected. The majority
selected the Nelson Island. And we have the counts on the back
of the page, too, with the ASAG report.
Chairman Stevens. This shows that the 1996 dump site is
actually totally inundated now?
Mr. Tom. It's gone. It was already impacted. Back in 1996
it was the city dump, but we had to relocate it right across
the river.
Chairman Stevens. You tell me it's on the other side of the
Noatak River now?
Mr. Tom. I think it is, but it's not the Noatak. We call it
the Nitlik River. We used a 1964 map. You can see the 1964 map
right here. There's the line right there, all the way to the
present day. In 2003 the land is not being impacted and by 2006
it will be gone. It's going already. We just lost 20 feet this
summer.
Chairman Stevens. This Nitlik River, is that a river,
literally?
Mr. Tom. Yes, sir, it's a river. The Nitlik is a river. The
Bering Sea is this way, the west side.
Chairman Stevens. I thought you were on the beach.
Mr. Tom. No, we're not on the beach. We're on the mainland
close to the inlet.
Chairman Stevens. When we take our trip next year, we'll
come out and take a look at that. You have indicated that you
believe the existing land will be impacted--is being impacted
now and will be gone by 2006, right?
Mr. Tom. Yes, sir, that's my observation.
Chairman Stevens. The barge landing is right there at the
edge of the river?
Mr. Tom. Yes, it's right there. You can see the barge
landing now. It's getting impacted right now, and it's already
halfway, and this summer we lost 20 feet.
Chairman Stevens. Well, that's a staggering progression
that's predicted for your area.
Mr. Tom. We figure the erosion impact--it will be sooner
than these figures because of the south wind.
Chairman Stevens. How are you going to avoid future erosion
if you move where you say you want to move?
Mr. Tom. The mainland is connected to Nelson Island. From
here it's pretty close. We have to move this in the wintertime
to cross the Nitlik River.
Chairman Stevens. How many people in your village now?
Mr. Tom. Right now we have about 430.
Chairman Stevens. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Adams, I appreciate your statement, also. I understand
your circumstance. Kivalina also is one of those listed by the
Corps. We might revisit those four villages next year on our
field trip. We have to go back into session and we have
conventions, so we can't do it this year.
Thank you, Ms. Eningowuk. Thank you for coming. As you
know, I have been to Shishmaref and seen your situation twice.
I think it's a staggering problem that you also have. We'll
come to visit you also. Meanwhile, we'll try to see what we can
do to get some of the changes that you discussed.
Mr. Rexford, you have a different problem. You have
Department of Defense assets at your disposal. I think we'll
see if we can't get them to take care of that runway, fix that
runway. We do thank you very much.
Any questions, Senators?
Senator Sununu. I have none.
Senator Burns. I wrote down a note. If you're not teaching,
Mr. Adams, what are you doing?
Mr. Adams. Hunting.
Senator Burns. Good choice. Thank you.
Chairman Stevens. Thank you very much. We do appreciate it
and I think the very lucid testimony follows up on the study
done by the GAO. We appreciate you taking the time to come and
explain it to us in person. Very good.
We'll now turn to a request that was made to us by HESCO to
have a presentation, while some of the village people are here,
of the plan that they have undertaken and they have experience
with here in the States.
Let me ask Dr. Suhayda to present his testimony now.
Doctor.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH SUHAYDA, HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS,
HESCO BASTION USA, LLC, HAMMOND, LOUISIANA
Dr. Suhayda. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
the committee.
My name is Joe Suhayda, and I'm pleased to have the
opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of HESCO
Bastion USA, a Louisiana-based manufacturer of a proven
erosion-and flood-control product.
In my testimony today I will briefly describe house
patented HESCO Concertainers can provide cost-effective
solutions to many of your erosion and flooding problems that
have been referred to previously. I will also describe specific
projects for two locations, Shishmaref and Point Hope, for
which we have developed conceptual plans to provide immediate
relief for communities with the help of our partners in Alaska
on this project, Alaska Erosion Control.
A little background. I'm a coastal engineer and I have
about 30 years of experience working on coastal issues,
particularly coastal erosion and flooding in Louisiana. Early
in my career I actually did work in Alaska at Point Lay, Barrow
and Pingok Island.
I have been working to try to develop solutions to problems
that are occurring with regard to coastal erosion and flood
control that address the issues of small communities. In
Louisiana we have several situations where we have communities
larger than, but not dissimilar to many of the village
communities in Alaska. The solutions for these types of
communities need to be considered to be in a different
situation than the technology that would be used to, say, deal
with New Orleans or the Mississippi River or something like
that.
Chairman Stevens. Doctor, we've got to give up this room at
12 noon. Could we ask you to tell us what you've got and tell
us how this might work in Alaska?
Dr. Suhayda. I will do that. What I have here is a
miniature version of what's called the Concertainer. If you
just take a look at it for a minute, what we have is a wire
cage or basket. We've got an elongated rectangle. It has
interior partitions of the wire.
Chairman Stevens. In actual dimensions, how big is that?
Dr. Suhayda. This could be manufactured from 2-foot squares
to 3 foot, up to 7-foot squares. They can be made in lengths up
to eight units long. So one of these is referred to as a
Concertainer. The wire mesh is steel-coated with a zinc-
aluminum galvanization alloy. The 3-inch mesh has a life of
about 40 years. On this particular example I have a
polypropylene liner that is placed on the periphery of it, and
that liner is to allow you to put native local materials into
these cubes and contain them such that we then have a structure
that is rigid and heavy enough to hold itself down.
Chairman Stevens. Do you have any vertical poles to hold
it?
Dr. Suhayda. Not necessary, no, sir. What can be done if
it's a situation where the forces are large enough is we can
put another layer of these units, tie them together. Because of
this spiral here at the junctions of the cubes, you can connect
two units together or several units together. We can also put
another unit on top of this one.
You can actually build big structures, but they're
integrated structures. There's little disconnects between any
of the units.
We're looking at different materials now to put in here
that would be appropriate for the Arctic environment; some of
the polypropylene products would not be. When it comes to the
advantages of this product, it's shipped in a collapsed form.
If you go out to a site, what you do--and this can be done by
hand--even for a 7-foot unit, is fold the units out, connect
them up, and then either with shovels or light equipment, take
local materials; it could be sand, gravel, or rock, stabilized
material--or in the extreme, if required, concrete--and fill
these baskets up. What you end up with then is a structure
that's of the appropriate height and geometry to deal with the
specific problem that you have.
Chairman Stevens. Don't you have to make the--like your
example--don't you have to make the clip square?
Dr. Suhayda. For this particular example, which is in the
United Kingdom, and I'd like to go to the slides now. What we
have here was an erosion problem that is similar to many of the
locations in the Bering Sea. The solution here was to place the
Concertainers at the base of the cliff and then build upward.
These actually are filled with concrete. We're dealing with the
northeast coast of England with a lot of wave action. Other
locations would use other types of materials.
If you notice here, there's this building--they actually
built a wall up here such that the surface area above the wall
could be used, that is, you actually reclaim some of that area.
Could I have the next slide? The major use today of the
HESCO Concertainer units is in military applications to provide
blast and munitions protection. The Concertainer was
developed----
Chairman Stevens. We saw those. Let's get to the flood
control.
Dr. Suhayda. Yes, sir. We have in Louisiana some flood
control applications. I just want to show you that they are,
again, applicable not to a Corps of Engineers' scale of
project, but much smaller.
Here's a situation where we have a small--what was done was
a keyway was cut, removed a surface organic material. They laid
the units out, interconnected them by hand, and then with a
small Bobcat or front-end loader filled them up with sand. We
end up with now having raised this about 4 feet at about one-
third of the cost that it would have been for an alternative
design.
Chairman Stevens. What's it cost for 1,000 feet, 8 feet
tall?
Dr. Suhayda. I can give you costs for the materials, that
is the Concertainers. Now, the local fill material, obviously
if it's available freely, that would reduce the cost.
Construction labor is also an issue. We can give you a cost per
foot. It ranges, for a 4-foot unit--if you could get away with
one 4-foot unit--less than $50 a foot.
If you have to put two or three units together to build it
up into a bigger pyramid type structure, it will run $100 or
maybe a couple hundred dollars a foot for a very big unit.
Again, this would just be materials cost in terms of the
Concertainer, not the fill material and not the labor.
An example of a little larger structure 7 feet high, which
was two 4-foot units with a 3-foot unit on top of that was for
the east Jefferson hurricane protection levee for the city----
Chairman Stevens. Have you tried any of that in the Arctic
yet?
Dr. Suhayda. Not yet, sir, we're hoping to do that.
Next slide. Well, what happened is that we became aware of
some of the issues and problems in Alaska with regard to
coastal erosion through a newspaper article. That piqued our
interest as to whether we could find applications here in
Alaska. So at the beginning of this year we had several people
come up to Alaska, again, it was with Alaska Erosion Control,
met with several of the villages. At that point it's a fact-
finding mission to learn more about what the issues are.
You were gracious enough to meet with a person from HESCO
and encouraged us to continue. At this point we have met with
eight of the nine villages that are on the GAO critical
communities list.
What I would like to do is talk about our capabilities to
support two projects this summer with regard to the materials.
I'm using the examples here of Shishmaref and Point Hope. There
could be other locations. One is a coastal erosion problem and
the other is a flood problem.
In Shishmaref there's about a 2,000-foot segment there that
needs to be addressed. What we can do is make materials
available at Shishmaref by the end of the month that should be
sufficient to support any design that would be done, such that
if the design engineering and construction capabilities are
sufficient at the site, we could actually get something done
before the winter freeze-up occurs.
Our role in this is to provide the materials, provide
support with regard to the engineering techniques and
construction techniques, but to not do either the engineering
or the construction. Obviously, the expertise is here in the
State. We can make the material available to allow a period of
about 2 to 3 months for construction and engineering. That's
about the best we can do for this year.
Next slide. This is Point Hope. You've got a flooding
problem along with others. There are, as I have shown you
before, designs and configurations that act very effectively as
flood barriers that can be as high as 4 feet or 7 feet that are
relatively easy to construct. The engineering required for that
situation would be much less than it would be for Shishmaref. I
think, again, we could provide enough material to support some
type of flood-abatement project given that the engineering and
construction, of course, would be needed.
Chairman Stevens. What would be the estimate of the cost of
each of those projects?
Dr. Suhayda. I can give you a materials cost. I figured it
out. As I said, we're talking about somewhere between $50 for a
single unit up to maybe a couple hundred dollars a foot if you
wanted to put more Concertainers. If you wanted to go to a very
elaborate structure obviously with more components, more
Concertainers, and the per foot cost is just going to be
proportional to how many units we use.
I'd like to just sum up, if I could. What we were hoping to
do is provide you with a way of extending the impact of any
funding that's available for projects. For example, if you have
$1 million and a traditional design would allow you to build
300 feet, we're hoping to provide you with options to build 600
feet or 900 feet that would meet the same performance and
engineering type theory of the original design. We can do that
because there are some inherent advantages to this structure.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Joseph Suhayda
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, Governor Murkowski and Members of
the Committee, my name is Joseph Suhayda. I am pleased to have the
opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of HESCO Bastion USA,
LLC, a Louisiana based manufacturer of a proven erosion control
product.
In my testimony today I will briefly describe how patented HESCO
Concertainers can provide cost effective solutions to many of the
erosion and flooding problems that have been previously described. I
will also describe specific projects for two locations, Shishmaref and
Point Hope, for which we have developed conceptual plans to provide
immediate relief for communities with the help of our partners in
Alaska, Alaska Erosion Control, LLC.
I am a coastal engineer and have had over 30 years experience
dealing with coastal issues, particularly coastal erosion and flooding
in Louisiana. Early in my career I did research on the North Slope of
Alaska; at Point Lay, Barrow and Pingok Island. Louisiana, like Alaska,
has been experiencing severe coastal erosion and flooding. For the last
thirty years I have been working to develop solutions to these problems
at Louisiana State University and as a consultant to several federal
and state agencies.
The primary means for addressing coastal wetland loss problems in
Louisiana is the Coastal Wetland Planning Protection and Restoration
Act, a shared federal and state program. Working with CWPPRA, or the
Breaux Act as it is referred to in Louisiana, I have developed an
appreciation for the importance of developing cost effective solutions
for the erosion problems of small communities. I became involved with
HESCO because it presented the first opportunity I was aware of to
develop viable cost effective solutions to erosion and flooding
problems not only in Louisiana but nationwide as well.
HESCO AND HESCO PRODUCTS
To draw your attention to the unique and often hard to describe
HESCO system, I have brought a miniature of one of the HESCO
Concertainers. The Concertainer is a rectangular or cubic basket
composed of wire and lined with a geotextile fabric. The panels are
heavily galvanized wire mesh with a zinc-aluminum alloy and have a
functional life of 38 years. The geotextile fabric is typically
polypropylene, however, it can be any of a variety of materials suited
to the particular environment of the project site.
The units are shipped to the project site in a folded configuration
and then quickly unfolded along the prepared route of the structure.
The Concertainers are filled with native materials using light
construction equipment or even shovels. Units of various sizes are
stacked in order to achieve an overall structure for the desired width
and height. A typical coastal erosion prevention structure is shown in
Figure 1.
The HESCO Concertainer was invented in England as an erosion and
flood control product. The first erosion project done by HESCO UK was
installed in 1989 and HESCO UK has established a reputation over the
last 15 years of successfully preventing land erosion and coastal
flooding worldwide.
HESCO Concertainers are being used extensively by the U.S.
Military in Iraq and all over the globe to build structures which
protect our troops, as shown in Figure 2. As you have probably seen on
the news, the military application is to build blast and munitions
absorbent walls that provide troop protection. The photo in Figure 2
was taken earlier this year in Iraq. This security application has
become the main market for the HESCO product.
Although HESCO UK has been working successfully with the United
States military, the product has not seen much use as it was originally
designed: erosion or flood control. To support this use, HESCO UK
licensed the product to be manufactured in the United States. HESCO
Bastion USA, LLC was opened on February 4, 2003 in Hammond, Louisiana.
Because of the enormous erosion and flooding problems that occur in
that region, HESCO USA has gained valuable experience in responding to
the needs in the Gulf Coast states. Our interest and scope of
capabilities has now expanded from Louisiana to Florida and California,
and now with the help of Alaska Erosion Control, here in Alaska.
The Concertainers have been used in several locations in
Louisiana. Figure 3 shows the placement of two 4 foot high units in
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. The Concertainers replaced a failed sand
bag structure and completed a critical component of the hurricane
protection levee system surrounding the city of New Orleans.
Figure 4 shows the addition of Concertainers to the top of the
South Lafourche levee system in Raceland, Louisiana. This addition
provided a cost effective incremental improvement to the existing levee
system that was in need of being raised, but due to the costs
associated with a prior product, improvements had been delayed. HESCO
was able to come in and complete the project at a fraction of the
original project's estimated cost. HESCO has been recently tested as a
rapid response flood barrier by The Army Corps of Engineers at their
Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, MS. After a month-long
series of lab and field tests, indications are that HESCO passed all
the tests, but we are awaiting the official results from the Corps.
The product is unique in that it has an almost universal
application due to the flexibility of the design and its ability to
adapt to local needs and conditions. Examples of this universality
include successfully completed projects ranging from flood control,
bank stabilization, mudslide prevention and port security. Based upon
this proven record of success I believe that the Concertainer can
provide a solution to many of the erosion and flooding problems
occurring in Alaska.
HESCO ALASKA
HESCO learned of the erosion and flooding problems in Alaska in
September 2003, and with Alaska Erosion Control, conducted several
reconnaissance visits to Alaskan villages in 2003 and 2004. After these
initial visits, we met with you, Chairman Stevens, to discuss our
findings and solicit your advice as to how to best make HESCO available
in Alaska.
At your urging, Mr. Chairman, HESCO and Alaska Erosion Control have
since visited eight of the nine critical villages in the December 2003
GAO report. We can now offer our assessment of what we can do to
immediately help address the problems.
Based on these visits and after assessing the viability of
utilizing HESCO in the eight villages, we have decided in this
presentation to focus on two of the villages where we feel we can be
most helpful in the immediate future. These two sites reflect the two
general types of problems being faced by many communities; flooding and
erosion.
The first location we address is Shishmaref. Figure 4 shows the
nature of the problem. The coast is eroding at a severe rate and
Shishmaref needs erosion control to save over about 2,300 feet of
shoreline. Our preliminary design is shown in panel B and consists of
several Concertainers stacked into an erosion barrier that would armor
the shoreface. The placement and height of the wall will be determined
in the final design. Again, the advantage of HESCO is that the design
utilizes local materials and equipment.
The second location we are to address is Point Hope. Figure 5 shows
the nature of the problem. The community is located on a low lying
barrier island and is subject to periodic flooding from the sea. Point
Hope needs a flood protection system. Our conceptual design would
consist of several Concertainer units stacked into a flood barrier
that would surround any of the threatened areas. The placement and
height of the wall will be determined in the final design. Again, the
design takes advantage of local materials and equipment. We hope to
install it this year, weather and paperwork permitting.
These projects represent only two of many Alaskan projects we
believe can be addressed with HESCO products. Not all of the problems
faced by the Native Alaska Villages will be solved using HESCO.
However, we believe we can provide a cost effective option to solve
many of the critical erosion and flooding problems.
SUMMARY
There are numerous advantages of HESCO products. First, is the
simplicity of installing the product. Second is the use of indigenous
materials to fill the Concertainers and the use of local machinery and
labor to provide this service. The third advantage is the cost
advantage that HESCO's product provides is the use of light
construction equipment. With proper training ``tech transfer'' can
occur allowing local project planners and engineers to design
solutions, and local labor to conduct installation and maintenance of
future projects. HESCO and Alaska Erosion Control would continue to
provide technical support.
HESCO Concertainers are a cost effective option to address many of
the erosion problems that have been discussed during these hearings.
Our approach is to utilize local resources including local people,
equipment and materials. Based upon this approach, we believe we have
the best method to maximize the chance of completing at least one of
the two projects, if not both, discussed previously during this season.
Thank you again Senator Stevens for inviting me to testify here today.
I hope to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Stevens. Senators, do you have any questions?
Senator Sununu. The existence of that polypropylene shell,
doesn't that increase the force of a tide or any current on the
structure?
Dr. Suhayda. Well, it doesn't increase it. It does prevent
or control the movement of the sediment. We don't want fine
sand, for example, to leach out. That's why we need something
that contains fine material. Obviously, the measurement size
could be adjusted. It doesn't really influence the magnitude of
the forces.
Senator Burns. That's the way we build some corner posts in
Montana for our fences.
Dr. Suhayda. I'd just like to conclude by thanking you very
much for this opportunity to testify. If there are any more
questions, I would be glad to take them.
Chairman Stevens. Would you consider those temporary
barriers or permanent barriers?
Dr. Suhayda. No, it's designed to be permanent. I mean,
this is not something that you would plan to remove. Now, it's
not impossible to remove them. In fact, in certain cases they
have been removed. But, no, this is a permanent structure.
Chairman Stevens. Do you think that you could prevent the
intrusion of the water on the airport there at Point Hope? Have
you visited there?
Dr. Suhayda. I'm telling you that we've done projects where
that has been engineered. We had a recent test by the Corps of
Engineers exactly for that purpose, to look at the ability of
one 4-foot high unit to resist flood waters. I don't want to
preempt the Corps' final report, but in my opinion it passed
all those tests. So I believe, yes, sir, we've got a product
that if properly designed and constructed would do that.
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS
Chairman Stevens. The committee has received statements
from the Northwest Arctic Borough and Matanuska-Susitna Borough
which will be placed in the record at this point.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas K. Bolen, Public Services Director,
Northwest Arctic Borough
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic
today. Shoreline erosion is a fact of life that many Alaskans have
lived with, day in and day out, for many years. In northwest Alaska, we
have several communities that suffer the impacts of shoreline erosion,
but none quite so perilously as the community of Kivalina.
Northwest Arctic Borough is the regional (like a county) form of
government serving an area the size of the state of Indiana. Borough
government has been working with the people of Kivalina for the past 15
years on the issue of planning the relocation of this coastal community
which has been continuously threatened by shoreline erosion and
inundation by water and ice. The study efforts have been a cooperative
venture by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Northwest Arctic
Borough, the City of Kivalina, and the Native Village of Kivalina. The
cost of this study and planning work has been shared equally by the
federal government and the local partners.
Although Kivalina's location was probably a great choice of a place
to put a subsistence fishing, whaling, or seal hunting camp, many years
ago, it is agreed by all who have seen Kivalina first hand that it is
not a suitable site for a modern community in need of room to grow and
lacking the infrastructure necessary to bring it into the 21st century.
Kivalina residents dwell on a narrow barrier island facing the Chukchi
Sea to the west and the Kivalina Lagoon to the east. Erosion and
flooding occur from both directions under differing weather conditions.
Kivalina residents haul water to their homes in plastic buckets and
haul sewage and other wastes from their homes in other plastic buckets.
These conditions continue today because state and federal funding
agencies are prohibited from funding infrastructure improvements due to
the threat of erosion and inundation.
Residents of Kivalina cannot evacuate their barrier island easily
or quickly. To do so would require boarding many small planes, or
readying and launching many small boats. Neither of these options are
usually available during the severe storm conditions which would
usually bring high water. Kivalina is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
As the Emergency Manager for Northwest Arctic Borough, I have constant
concerns for the welfare of Kivalina residents.
This community is in dire need of an affordable alternate site, and
of critical importance initially is a means of access to an alternate
site. To date, except for the ice trails of winter, there has never
been any access to alternate sites. Kivalina residents have never had
Spring, Summer, or Fall access to any alternative site which could
stimulate organized or individual relocation. It is therefore no small
wonder that after 15 years of study, planning, and designing, that
Kivalina residents are still trapped on their barrier island.
The Northwest Arctic Borough has always supported Kivalina's desire
to relocate, and continues to work to bring about successful
relocation. The Borough and Kivalina residents are grateful to Senator
Stevens and his congressional allies for making study money available
to investigate this issue. We urge that more funding is needed to
address making relocation happen for Alaskan residents, like those in
Kivalina, who find themselves socially, economically, physically, and
spiritually pinned down by the forces of Mother Nature. As Moses said
to the Pharaoh, ``let my people go.'' We must find a way to build
access to the promised land and set Kivalina residents free.
______
Prepared Statement of John Duffy, Borough Manager, Matanuska-Susitna
Borough
I am writing to you today to present the testimony of the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough regarding erosion problems.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough encompasses an area approximately the
size of the state of Pennsylvania. The Borough has one of the fastest
growing populations in the United States, increasing from 44,260 in
1986 to over 66,000 in 2004, and is ranked as the 47th fastest growing
``county'' in the country. The Borough has about 75 miles of saltwater
shore and over 10,000 miles of inland shore line.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is characterized by high mountains
dropping to fertile valleys, where most residents live. Thousands of
streams and dozens of rivers course through the Borough providing some
of the most important habitat and recreational areas in the state.
There are currently over 3,500 individual parcels designated as creek
or river frontage.
An additional 9,700 parcels are listed as lake frontage. Many of
these parcels are also affected by erosion issues. Unfortunately these
numbers underestimate the risk because millions of acres containing
thousands of miles of rivers and creeks remain in large ownership
blocks. These lands are being subdivided and developed at an ever
increasing rate.
The borough suffers from repetitive and substantial flooding which
is causing more damage and risk to public health and property as our
population and development density increases. While the history of
flooding in the Borough is incomplete due to the remote nature of the
area, many damaging floods have occurred in just the last fifty years
(1955, 1959, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1986, 1992, and 1995). It is
important to note that much of the damage to property and structures
caused by these flood events resulted from erosion rather than high
water levels. In addition, the damage from erosion occurs much more
frequently than flood damage.
Due to the nature of the rivers and streams in our Borough the risk
from erosion and flooding is not described or predicted through the
traditional concept of the 100 year flood plain study. To prevent this
damage and loss the Borough needs better tools to predict these erosion
risks.
One of the biggest obstacles to preventing damage along our
waterways is the fact that many of the rivers and streams in the
Borough are braided and meandering, or steep and fast moving. Both
types of watercourses travel predominantly through alluvial and
glacially deposited soils and gravel which are easily displaced even by
non-floodwater velocities. This characteristic results in frequent and
very prevalent erosion and undercutting as the streams change course
and cut new channels. The damage can be quite dramatic with undercut
bluffs dropping hundreds of feet and shore lands cutting more than
sixty feet per day into uplands along thousands of feet of the shore.
This characteristic of our watercourses is common to braided and
meandering streams and is not necessarily a function of the flood
stage. The erosion and undercutting occurs more frequently than
flooding and can be more devastating than flooding because the dramatic
change in topography often makes reconstruction or redevelopment
impossible. Several blocks of the original town site of Talkeetna are
now lost to the waters of the Susitna River. Whole blocks of
subdivisions have similarly been eroded into the Matanuska River. Homes
have fallen into the Matanuska River as recently as 1992. Some homes
and buildings have been relocated as the river or stream advanced. The
Borough has condemned some structures to facilitate removal. Many
cabins and structures have fallen into numerous other streams and
rivers over the years. Currently major roads such as the Glenn Highway
and Parks Highway, as well as the Alaska Railroad and major electrical
utility lines, are continually threatened by undercutting from these
and other watercourses.
Structural mitigation measures such as shore armor, levies and
dikes are used to reduce damage. The borough and the state have
repeatedly been forced to conduct emergency stopgap efforts to
temporarily stave off quickly developing imminent threats to homes and
roads. Unfortunately, the shear volume and relentless actions of the
water flow defeats these structures in a remarkably short time unless
they are frequently repaired at great expense.
The constantly changing course of the streams makes it impossible
to map the floodway with any predictive certainty, rendering Flood
Insurance Rate Maps almost useless. The meandering characteristics of
the alluvial rivers also quickly outdate any detailed mapping effort
using conventional backwater analysis. Inaccurate Flood Insurance Rate
Maps result in inaccurate decisions about flood and erosion risk for
planners and developers. Uncertainty makes it more difficult to adopt
and implement meaningful land use and development plans and
regulations.
Viewing the area likely to be traversed by the meandering river as
a ``Meander Belt'' allows a more meaningful basis to develop hazard
analysis and mitigation plans. The meander belt analysis requires
adequate tools for recognizing both the vertical and horizontal
boundaries of areas likely to be impacted by water volume, water
velocity, erosion and sediment deposition over a specified time frame.
Using this information, local, state and federal government officials
can make the most accurate and cost effective decisions for preventing
loss of property and risk to public safety. High risk areas can be more
easily avoided and development can be more efficiently designed to
maximize profit, as well as, public value, in the feasible area.
The borough lacks methodology, resources and information for
developing the necessary new models to predict and assess risk of
riverine meander belts. Even basic historic water volume and flow data
does not exist for many of our water courses. Watershed data and
traditional flood hazard data is incomplete or outdated, where it does
exist.
Having wrestled with the problem of erosion for many years we have
considered several alternatives to address the problem. The damage
arising from the unusual circumstances not routinely encountered in
flood situations elsewhere requires rejection of traditional 100 year
flood plain concepts. It is our opinion that a new concept is needed to
arrive at realistic mitigation measures.
The Borough therefore respectfully requests that Congress authorize
the development of methodology to predict the 30, 60, and 100 year
erosion meander belts with associated flood hazard areas of the water
courses in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, particularly in the areas
where development pressure is highest, and to revise National Flood
Insurance Rate Map panels accordingly. To this end, we request the
creation of a demonstration project that would result in the following
products: completion of a comprehensive watershed study of the Borough;
establishment of a comprehensive network of flow meters in the more
significant streams and rivers; study of those watercourses resulting
in a new flood and erosion hazard study for the Borough; identification
of 30, 60, and 100 year erosion meander belts; and identification of
best management practices and guidelines to protect property from
erosion.
We believe that the following watercourses should be included
within the demonstration project: Susitna River, Matanuska River, Knik
River, Little Susitna River, Willow Creek, Deshka River (Kroto Creek),
Kahiltna River, Skwenta River, Yentna River, Alexander Creek, Talkeetna
River, and Chulitna River.
With the information obtained through this demonstration project,
the Borough will have much better tools available to protect property
and the safety, health and welfare of its residents. Moreover, the
information will be readily transferable to other communities and
municipalities in Alaska.
The Matanuska-Susitna Borough thanks the Committee for its
attention to this serious matter. If there is more information that we
may provide, please do not hesitate to contact me at (907) 745-9689.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Chairman Stevens. Okay. Thanks very much. We appreciate you
coming up.
This will conclude our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., Wednesday, June 30, the hearings
were concluded, and the committee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-