[Senate Hearing 113-542]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-542
EXTREME WEATHER IN ALASKA:
STATE AND FEDERAL RESPONSE TO IMMINENT
DISASTERS IN THE ARCTIC
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FIELD HEARING IN ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
__________
SEPTEMBER 13, 2013
__________
Available via http://www.fdsys.gov
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
85-508 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Keith B. Ashdown, Minority Staff Director
Trina D. Shiffman, Chief Clerk
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, AND
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARK BEGICH, Alaska Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
Pat McQuillan, Staff Director
Brandon Booker, Minority Staff Director
Kelsey Stroud, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statement:
Page
Senator Begich............................................... 1
WITNESSES
Friday, September 13, 2013
Vivian Korthuis, Project Development Director, Association of
Village Council Presidents..................................... 4
Thomas Ravens, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Alaska, Anchorage................................ 5
Melanie Bahnke, President of Kawerak, Inc........................ 7
David Miller, Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration...................................... 18
Kenneth Murphy, Regional Administrator, FEMA Region X............ 20
Colonel Christopher D. Lestochi, District Commander Alaska
District, Pacific Ocean Division, Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers........................................ 21
John W. Madden, Director, Alaska Division of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management....................................... 23
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Bahnke, Melanie:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Korthuis, Vivian:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Lestochi, Col. Christopher D.:
Testimony.................................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Madden, John W.:
Testimony.................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Miller, David:
Testimony.................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Murphy, Ken:
Testimony.................................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Ravens, Thomas:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 38
APPENDIX
Questions and responses for the Record from:
Ms. Korthuis................................................. 71
Mr. Ravens................................................... 109
Ms. Bahnke................................................... 114
Mr. Miller................................................... 115
Mr. Murphy................................................... 119
Mr. Lestochi................................................. 121
EXTREME WEATHER IN ALASKA: STATE
AND FEDERAL RESPONSE TO IMMINENT DISASTERS IN THE ARCTIC
----------
SEPTEMBER 13, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Emergency Management,
Intergovernmental Relations,
and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental
Relations, and the District of Columbia of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs met,
pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in Anchorage, Alaska, Hon. Mark
Begich presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH
Chairman Begich. Thank you, for those that have rearranged
your schedules. I was just joking that we can fly to the moon,
put things on Mars. We can go to the bottom of the ocean. We
can drill 5,000 feet under the ocean floor, but when it rains
in Washington, you can not get a plane off the ground. It is
the most amazing thing. So thank you for being patient while I
traveled here today and again, good afternoon, thank you and
welcome.
This is the Subcommittee on Emergency Management,
Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia. As I
said, many of you have traveled a great distance to be here
today, so thanks for being here and welcome to Anchorage. I
apologize again for the hectic schedule. As you know, the
weather made a big difference.
We appreciate your flexibility and willingness and we thank
Nana Regional Corporation for allowing us to use this great
room here. We appreciate them allowing and changing the
schedule a little bit.
Today, at this Subcommittee's first field hearing, we will
examine the impacts of extreme weather on Alaska Native
villages and long-term strategies for mitigating risk
associated with the changing climate. Alaska's unique position
as an Arctic State presents both advantages and challenges, as
we work to support and preserve our State's economy, social and
cultural structure.
One of the most immediate challenges is how we are adapting
to the evolving threats of extreme weather. Alaska's remote
location and unique vulnerabilities put our State on the front
lines to expose gaps and highlight the need for flexibility is
disaster related policies across the Federal Government.
There are many things you can learn from Alaska's
experience and we have an opportunity to lead the way in
reducing risk and supporting sustainable communities.
Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and I have to say for a
second, the DC staff, I know experienced an earthquake, I think
it was yesterday. So they got a good feel. We like to welcome
them when we are doing emergency preparedness, let's just have
an earthquake to start it off.
They occur with little warning and happen quickly, but
erosion and flooding and sea level rise are long-term events
that can have far reaching effects without meeting the
threshold of a disaster as defined by the Stafford Act. I like
to call these prolonged disasters.
Coastal or river erosion may not be enough to qualify a
community for Federal disaster declaration, but extreme weather
can often make these issues worse, leaving communities at
higher risk. Over the years, Congress and other members of the
Federal Government have examined the threats of erosion and
flooding to Alaska Native villages. In 2004, the Army Corps of
Engineers was directed by Congress to conduct an Alaska erosion
baseline study released in 2009.
In addition, the Corps was provided with the authority to
carry out, at full Federal expense, structural and
nonstructural projects for storm damage prevention and
reduction of coastal erosion and ice and glacial damage in
Alaska, including relocation of affected communities and
construction of replacement facilities.
While authority was provided for this action, sufficient
funds have not been appropriated. The Energy and Water
Appropriation Act of 2005 contained Section 117, which provided
direct assistance for coastal erosion in nine Alaska villages
and by all accounts was quite successful.
However, this authority was replaced in March 2009, against
my objections. Earlier this year, the Senate Committee of
Appropriation, of which I am a member of, passed an energy and
water appropriation bill for the fiscal year (FY) 2014, that
supported language which provides 30 million dollars in a
larger shore protection funding category that could go to
Alaska projects.
While we still have to pass the appropriation bill in the
Senate and then reconcile it with the House version before
final passage, I am committed to seeing this language survive
and look forward to working with the Corps to assure the
funding remains available for the critical projects throughout
the State.
The Corps's 2009 assessment identified 26 immediately
threatened villages, some of which are represented here today
on our second panel of witnesses, actually first panel.
Unfortunately, the list of 26 has grown over the years and
shows no sign of getting smaller.
More immediately threatened villages have been identified
by various agencies and organizations and the list of
critically vulnerable villages has grown to 31. According to
the Government Accountability Office (GAO), at least 12 of the
31 immediately threatened villages have decided to relocate in
part or entirely, or to at least begin to explore relocation
options.
The villages at greatest risk would have to move on a
tighter timeframe since they continue to suffer flooding and
erosion and have limited evacuation options should their
situation worsen. Other at-risk villages that are considering
relocation have the option of gradually migrating to a safer
location over time.
The seemingly ad hoc approach to community relocation does
little to make strides toward a risk reduction strategy. At the
request of Congress, the GAO has published research into Alaska
Native villages threatened by erosion and flooding.
In 2009, the GAO, released a report on Alaska Native
villages, limited progress has been made on relocating villages
threatened by flooding and erosion. The report ended with
recommendations that have yet to be acted on and could provide
a road map for future committee action.
I look forward to working in my capacity as Chair of the
Subcommittee to ensure the GAO continues to focus on Alaska's
issues and updates their recommendations to reflect the State's
most current needs. Alaska's an indiscernible State with a
common goal promoting thriving communities in the face of
increasingly uncertain and extreme weather.
We live in a State that challenges to confront the
realities of a changing climate sooner than any other State,
but what we learn here in Alaska must not be confined within
our borders. We have a responsibility to help make the Federal
policy as flexible as possible, so the Nation can adapt to new
climate realities. Without a plan to incorporate evolving
threats and hazards into community planning, critical
infrastructure will remain incapable of surviving the long-term
effects of climate change.
Until we have a comprehensive picture of the risk our
citizens are facing, we will continue to struggle to lessen our
risk in support economically, culturally and socially viable
communities here in Alaska and around the country. This is not
just an Alaskan priority. It is a priority for the Nation and I
look forward to hearing the testimony today as we continue this
discussion.
This meeting is called to order and let me just say that we
have done a couple of things here, and I appreciate the staff
putting this together. Usually, you see committee hearings that
the four witnesses are there and they are facing this way and
everyone sees their backs.
The last two we have done, we do them this way, because as
we talk about these issues, we want them to feel as comfortable
as possible, they are not just talking to me. So we appreciate
the folks that are here. I know we are trying to tie someone in
by phone, is that true? Are they connected?
Unidentified Speaker. Yes.
Chairman Begich. OK, let me introduce the first panel.
Again, we thank everyone for being here. We thank you for
adjusting your schedule. First, I will introduce all three and
then I will ask them to each start with their testimony. The
first one is Vivian Korthuis, right?
Ms. Korthuis. Korthuis.
Chairman Begich. Korthuis, and currently serves as Project
Development Director for the Association of Village Council
Presidents (AVCP). Vivian is originally from Emmonak on the
Lower Yukon River and you are here probably for Myron, I bet.
Thank you very much, Vivian.
Thomas Ravens is a professor at the University of Alaska,
Anchorage. Dr. Ravens' research is focused on two principal
areas. Coastal processes and renewable energy includes field,
laboratory and modeling work. Thank you for being here.
Online, we have Melanie Bahnke--is currently the President
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Kawerak, Incorporated,
regional nonprofit tribal consortium in the Bering Strait
Region of Alaska where there are 20 federally recognized
Tribes. Do you all want to do them in this order--do we want
to--OK.
Let me start with Vivian and then I will go to Thomas and
then Melanie, I will have you on last and hopefully, you can
hear us OK here. Vivian, thank you very much again for being
here.
Ms. Korthuis. Is this on?
Chairman Begich. It is on.
Ms. Korthuis. Great, thank you.
Chairman Begich. If it is red, it is on.
TESTIMONY OF VIVIAN KORTHUIS,\1\ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR,
ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS, BETHEL, ALASKA
Ms. Korthuis. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Committee
Members. My name is Vivian Korthuis. I am the Project
Development Director for the Association of Village Council
Presidents in Bethel, Alaska. AVCP is the regional Native
nonprofit corporation for 56 Tribes along the Yukon/Kuskokwim
River and the Bering Sea Coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Korthuis appears in the Appendix
on page 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for inviting AVCP today to address you regarding
the Tribal issues related to disasters in the Arctic. The
Arctic is changing, which means our homeland is changing. The
Elders in our region are observing these changes. Our
communities are being directly impacted. We have seen floods,
extreme weather, rivers and streams changing course, and lakes
drying up on the YK Delta. The impact of these events have had
on our villages includes changes to our traditional hunting and
fishing and relocation of whole communities.
Over time, we have established community response teams
which have included health aides, city and Tribal police,
school administrators, Tribal administrators and local
community leaders, who have taken it upon themselves to plan
and implement local disaster responses.
Many of our villages do not have adequate infrastructure
that is required to take care of people in crisis.
We have seen this recently with the example of the flood in
Crooked Creek. In this situation, we witnessed the resilience
of our people and our communities. As a regional Native Tribal
Consortium, we must address every disaster in our region with
the resources that are available to us. We rely on the Tribal
Administrator to take the lead in planning for and responding
to community disasters which may occur at any time of the year.
Overall, our region is truly not prepared for a large-scale
weather or industrial disaster occurring either along the Yukon
River, Kuskokwim River or Bering Sea coast. Our 56 Tribes and
communities will take the lead in anything that occurs within
the village, but our villages will need help.
The help our villages need sometimes comes in many
different ways, including planning, preparing for and
responding to the mitigating, long-lasting environmental
impacts from erosion, floods and extreme weather. The best way
we know how to do this is at the community level. We know what
works in our villages and how best to prepare for either an
unexpected crisis or a planned relocation of a community.
Our region must improve the capacity to be disaster
resilient. We recommend that every community have an emergency
plan. Some villages are not prepared and some villages are. The
key players in the community involve the Tribal Police or
Village Public Safety Officer, as well as the City Managers and
Tribal Administrators. The health aides play a key role in the
community. Funding must be available for all communities to
have community plans.
The region also needs a centralized response and recovery
plan. AVCP has been working on this for the past several years.
We propose to develop the Western Alaska Emergency Response
Center, which will aid in the coordination of all emergency
responses in our region, and then I am going to jump to the end
and say that again, the best way we know how to deal with
disasters in the Arctic, our homeland, is at the community
level and we are requesting assistance from both the State and
the Federal Government to be completely prepared and ready to
respond to any disaster along the Yukon River, Kuskokwim River
and the Bearing Sea coast. Thank you.
Chairman Begich. Thank you very much and just again, for
the record, all your written testimonies are included in the
official record, too. So I thank you for jumping to the end
there. Let me go to Thomas, go ahead and do your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS RAVENS,\1\ PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE
Dr. Ravens. Thank you, Senator, and welcome to you and
other distinguished guests. I am a professor of Civil
Engineering at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. I have been
here for 6 years. Prior to Alaska, I was a tenured professor at
Texas A&M University and before that, I did my Ph.D. at MIT on
the east coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Ravens appears in the Appendix on
page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I am telling you all that because--to show you that I
understand coastal processes, both from the Lower 48
perspective and from the Alaska perspective and things are
really quite different up here is Alaska, especially the
northern part of Alaska.
In the Lower 48, the main cause of coastal change is
mechanical processes. In Alaska, especially northern Alaska,
thermal processes are very important. A good part of the
coastline is permafrost and the thawing of that coastline
allows the sediments to be readily transported away.
So approaches that may have worked in the Lower 48, really
need to be changed to be successful up here in Alaska and we
have done some preliminary work along those lines, which has
been successful, but now, what I really want to talk with you
today about is storm surge modeling on the YK Delta, which is
on the west coast of Alaska.
Now, the YK Delta is home for 40,000 Alaskans, including
many Native Alaskans. It is also the home of the wildlife, the
Yukon Wildlife Refuge, which is a world-class center for
nesting birds, but unfortunately, the Delta's very low
elevation--only two meters above mean sea level and so it is
very vulnerable to storm surges and that vulnerability will
only increase, in fact drastically, with sea level rise.
So the goal of some research I am reporting on now was to
really quantify--well, how vulnerable is the YK Delta, in
particular, its ecology, to sea level rise? We assumed a 40-
centimeter sea level rise and for this initial work, we are
just projecting changes to vegetation due to that sea level
rise.
We identified 10 historic storms. We simulated the
inundation due to those storms. We calculated an annual
inundation index, which is a measure of the expected amount of
inundation on the Delta during a given year and the output of
that is some kind of plot, like a contour plot showing exposure
to inundation as a function of space and on the right, imagine
a map of vegetation on the Delta and when you look at those
two, you see a remarkable correspondence between the index, the
inundation index, and vegetation type.
So for example, an inundation index of one to two-meter
days per year corresponds with the presence of brackish wet
sedge meadow, OK, so--which is a very salt tolerant species,
which is why it can handle that inundation.
So we went back to the modeling and assumed, the second
time around, a 40-centimeter sea level rise, recomputed the
inundation due to that sea level rise, recomputed that annual
inundation index and what we see is quite remarkable.
That level of inundation in one to two-meter days per year
that used to be on the coast--that is on the coast now, would
move seven kilometers inland with just a 40-centimeter sea
level rise and presumably, the vegetation would move along with
it.
So clearly, the Delta is very sensitive and vulnerable to
sea level rise. The terrestrial life will also be affected. Sea
level rise will also be impacting the water bodies in the
areas. Rivers will become more saline causing change in species
distributions. Ponds on the Delta will become more saline due
to inundation. Those ponds are critical for the life cycle of
the nesting birds in the Delta. So they are going to be very
vulnerable.
So we have these great tools that we have developed and we
are interested in not just applying them toward ecology, but
also indiscernible communities and we recently submitted a
indiscernible proposal to do just that, to help the city of
Hooper Bay plan for the future, take into account sea level
rise.
A lot of these coastal communities have water resources
infrastructure, like drinking water infrastructure or waste
water, that are very vulnerable to sea level rise. Basically,
water is going to get in their wells. They are going to get
salty.
I believe that with this approach that we have developed,
we can look around the State and help assess the vulnerability
of different communities and so I propose that as something
that might be useful for you all to ponder.
Another area that we have been working is, at least in our
minds, is perhaps setting up a real-time--in a forecast system
for inundation along the western Alaska coastline and I have
talked with Amy Holman about this and the National Weather
Service (NWS) people.
We have, for a project on--funded by the Western Alaska
Landscape Conservation Cooperative, we have a group from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who is
building a storm surge model that covers the Bering Sea with a
coarse grid approach and that model is running, essentially in
real-time and also in forecast mode.
We can take that data and use our fine-scaled model to
translate projections of inundation on very high resolution for
individual communities, which I believe would be a big
improvement over currently what we are doing for these
communities.
We more or less have everything in place and we just need
to maybe do a demonstration project and that would make Alaska
more in line with what's done in the Lower 48 in terms of storm
preparedness. Maybe I am at the end of my 5 minutes. Thank you
very much.
Chairman Begich. Thanks, Thomas. Let me go to Melanie
online--I have been writing some questions down here, I want to
ask the panel, but let's go ahead and if Melanie's online, go
ahead and do your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MELANIE BAHNKE,\1\ PRESIDENT OF KAWERAK, INC.
Ms. Bahnke. Yes, Senator, can you hear me?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Bahnke appears in the Appendix on
page 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Begich. Yes, we can, thank you.
Ms. Bahnke. All right, thank you, Senator Begich, Senator
Paul, and Members of the Senate Subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify. I am Akighqukaaghaq, Melanie Bahnke and
I am the President of Kawerak. I was raised on St. Lawrence
Island, where you truly can see Russia from your house.
Senator, we are looking forward to your visit tomorrow to Nome.
Chairman Begich. I am looking forward to it.
Ms. Bahnke. Again, thank you for giving me this opportunity
to present our challenges and recommendations. I am pleased
that Congress and the Administration is focusing attention on
tribal communities, erosion, disaster and community relocation
issues.
The Bering Strait Region of Alaska is about the size of
West Virginia. The population in our region is over 9,000, and
the region is not connected to the rest of Alaska by road or
rail. Seventeen of the 20 villages are not accessible by road
at all from our hub community of Nome, except for in the
summer. In winter, the ocean freezes over and barge services
are cutoff. Air transportation for freight and passengers is
thus costlier in the winter. All of the communities in our
region are located on the sea coast or shores of rivers.
Until compulsory education was imposed upon our people,
Alaska Natives in our region often followed the game and
established temporary settlements based on hunting and
gathering seasons. With the influx of the missionaries, who
were paid by the Federal Government, permanent settlements were
established and in the 1930s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
forced some residents to relocate to the coast to save on
mobilization costs.
We have seen the effects of climate change and erosion
issue firsthand. Our organization has a Natural Resources
Division and we have researchers who have collected data from
hundreds of hunters and gatherers in our region, who have lived
their whole lives observing the environment and they have
witnessed many changes, such as a rise in sea level, later
freeze-up, thinner ice, permafrost melting, changes in weather
patterns, shorter winters, hotter summers, and due to later
freeze-up of the ocean and absent physical protection from
severe fall storms, several of our communities are experiencing
rapid erosion of their shorelines and some may be better off
relocated.
The Bering Strait Region has five villages in imminent
danger posing threat to life and property. The 2011 Bering Sea
winter storm was declared a disaster by President Obama. The
storm threatened coastal communities because there are no
current revetments, sea walls, protection in our villages,
except for in three. Flooding occurred. Power was cutoff. Air
transportation was cutoff and communication to some of our
villages was lost for several hours. People were literally
stranded and cutoff from the outside world.
Making things even worse, the threat of manmade disasters
loom over our region as the increase in shipping through the
narrow Bering Strait is being experienced. In 2012, we had an
estimated 480 transits through the Bering Strait. This number
might not seem high, but when you consider that the Bering
Strait is only 50 miles wide at its narrowest point, is shallow
and that the traffic is occurring in a condensed amount of
time, there are risks for disasters.
Our Federal, State, local and tribal governments are ill-
prepared for both natural disasters and manmade disasters in
our region. There's no lead agency spearheading comprehensive
efforts to prevent, mitigate and respond to disasters and there
is a lack of coordination among the agencies that are tasked
with carrying out the splintered components of these efforts.
Resources to carry out projects in our region have been
limited. Often funding opportunities require a cost/benefit
analysis that factors in population or require a local cost-
share that is prohibitive.
Even when funding has been made available, we have
experienced challenges in implementing practical solutions due
to restrictive funding regulations. Excuse me, splintering
funding sources together to address the comprehensive impacts
of a community disaster is challenging, to say the least.
We do offer some recommendations. We recommend that the
Immediate Action Work Group (IAWG) be reinstated. This model is
an exemplary model of coordinating State, Federal, and local
leaders to prioritize projects, coordinate resources and
implement projects. Resources should be allocated to support
the coordination of efforts.
Priorities that have already been identified should be
funded. We also ask that the U.S. Corps of Engineer's 2009
recommendations report be implemented and if a cost-share
structure is necessary, that cost-share structure should be
between the Federal Government and the State government, not
local communities who practically have no tax base.
I also recommend that red tape be eliminated. We need to
identify and eliminate regulations and policies that are
prohibitive to access of funds. Identify and consolidate
disaster funding; the current splintering of funding sources
for disasters is complicated and cumbersome. Disaster
prevention, planning, mitigation and response for communities
should be viewed holistically and the resources required to
fulfill these functions should be consolidated and provide
flexibility.
Emergency preparedness support should be provided. Each
community and region should have an emergency operation plan in
place, as well as the equipment and resources necessary to
carry out their plan should a disaster strike. Typically, when
we are hit by storms, our storms are not hitting just one
community. So therefore, we feel that it is necessary to have a
regional disaster plan, emergency operation plan in place.
We request that U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) presence in the
Arctic be increased and that a permanent U.S. Coast Guard base
in the Bering Strait, which is the choke point between Russia
and Alaska is reestablished and last, we ask that a model for
practical collaboration with rural communities and Tribes be
implemented.
The U.S. Coast Guard has actively established
relationships, is communicating with and coordinating with
Tribes in our region of Alaska. Other agencies, such as the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Corps of
Engineers and the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), both
State and Federal, should follow suit.
Again, thanks for providing the opportunity to provide you
with some insight to the issues and offer recommendations. The
benefits of allocating resources proactively, as opposed to
after a disaster, should be considered. No person in the most
developed country in the world, regardless of ethnicity, should
be subject to the threat of loss of life due to conditions that
can be mitigated by governmental actions.
The United States is an Arctic nation and has an obligation
to assert its sovereign authority and protect national
interests. With that authority comes responsibility for
disaster prevention, mitigation and response, especially in an
area such as the Bering Strait region, which is exposed to
international ocean traffic. Kawerak stands ready to be a
partner with our Tribes, local, State and Federal Governments
toward this end. Thank you.
Chairman Begich. Thank you very much, Melanie. I appreciate
your testimony. I am going to spend a few minutes here asking
some questions of all three and thank you, your last point
there--I know some complain about government overreach, but
this is probably one place where the Federal Government has a
role and responsibility.
Let me first, if I can, with Thomas, I want to make sure I
understand what you laid out there and the way I am going to
analyze it or say is hopefully--it makes sense and you can tell
me if I am wrong here, but the concern is because of the low
level, the ground level of Alaska lands, the rising sea level,
which is salty water, as it continues to erode--create erosion
or erode the areas around the coast or it moves in as sea level
rises, it is now contaminating, and these are my words,
contaminating the fresh water, as well as other types of
vegetation that the Alaska Native community lives on.
For example, there may be areas, if you go seven kilometers
in, you could wipe out an area, for example, where berry
gathering is done because now you have salt water mixing in and
you may have areas that are habitat for bird nesting, but also
as potentially areas where there are egg collecting, as well as
bird harvesting for subsistence use. So you may have impact on
their habitat and they may not come back and then potential
fresh water fish, now have salt water entering their areas.
Putting that aside, you then have this water interfering
with water systems that some of the communities are pulling
water right out of the current lakes for their water resources.
Am I saying that right?
Dr. Ravens. I think you basically got it right.
Chairman Begich. OK.
Dr. Ravens. One thing I would just point out.
Chairman Begich. Let me make sure, that was two kilometers
versus four--I mean, two kilometers--two centimeters here
versus this, right? That's the distance we are talking about,
the change, the two modelings you gave?
Dr. Ravens. The 40 centimeters sea level rise.
Chairman Begich. Yes affirmative, 40 centimeters.
Dr. Ravens. So average sea level rise----
Chairman Begich. Over a year?
Dr. Ravens. No, whenever it happens, so----
Chairman Begich. Just a surge?
Dr. Ravens. So you know, the National Climate Assessment
came out recently and they projected a number of possible
scenarios for sea level rise, say by the year 2100 and .4
meters or 40 centimeters is probably on the low end and then, 1
or 1\1/2\ is right in the middle and then 2 is on the high end.
So we are expecting----
Chairman Begich. So you're measuring--your modeling is
done--these are my words again, your--from two centimeters to
40, your extreme measure is actually the low measure?
Dr. Ravens. Well, I'm sorry, it wasn't two centimeters, it
was two meters.
Chairman Begich. Two meters, OK.
Dr. Ravens. So the delta surface is two meters----
Chairman Begich. Right.
Dr. Ravens. Above mean sea level and then there is
something like a meter or a meter-and-a-half tidal range.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Dr. Ravens. So as it is now, on a regular basis, there is
flooding of the delta.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Dr. Ravens. Almost every year, there is flooding with----
Chairman Begich. That's the two centimeters?
Dr. Ravens. It varies. The amount of flooding in a given
year--typically, you will have a surge of about 2, 2\1/2\
meters, which is enough to inundate----
Chairman Begich. Lots of areas.
Dr. Ravens [continuing.] Tens of kilometers of the delta
surface.
Chairman Begich. Got you.
Dr. Ravens. And so what I am saying is if you add 40
centimeters on top of that----
Chairman Begich. And then the surges occur?
Dr. Ravens. Then the surges occur, then you are going to
cover a lot more----
Chairman Begich. Got you.
Dr. Ravens [continuing.] Of the delta.
Chairman Begich. And again, these impacts, and I was just
over the area probably now 2 weeks ago with the Secretary of
Interior and we flew to the Arctic. We went to Lonely Point and
we could see literally the erosion as it occurs.
It is not just a little bit of, people think that well, it
is just a little bit of dirt falling off. It is big chunks
because it is frozen. So as it eats away, and that chunk falls
off and then it just starts to disintegrate.
Dr. Ravens. Yes.
Chairman Begich. Because you are falling into the salt
water, so the ice, it is disappearing very rapidly.
Dr. Ravens. Yes.
Chairman Begich. And that dirt, literally just goes out.
Dr. Ravens. Right, so amazingly, the north coast of Alaska,
most of it is 70 percent ice by volume.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Dr. Ravens. So it is basically a dirty ice cube and the
Bering Sea----
Chairman Begich. You mean that in a positive way, so let's
make sure that's clear.
Dr. Ravens. And as the Bering Sea warms up, and it is
warmed up very rapidly in the last 30 years or so, it is
essentially just thawing those coastal bluffs and we are, in
some places, seeing erosion rates of 50 meters per year and you
are right, and it falls in these huge clumps.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Dr. Ravens. It is called niche erosion block collapse and
we have an excellent model of that process.
Chairman Begich. But I saw the real live thing.
Dr. Ravens. You saw the real thing?
Chairman Begich. I mean, these were huge pieces of ground.
Dr. Ravens. Yes, it is.
Chairman Begich. It was not like a little piece like this.
I mean, it was a pretty good size. So as it was chewing away
underneath it.
Dr. Ravens. Yes.
Chairman Begich. It just literally came off.
Dr. Ravens. Right.
Chairman Begich. And then it just disintegrates.
Dr. Ravens. Yes, and the size of those chunks is related to
the polygons up there. If you were looking from the----
Chairman Begich. Yes.
Dr. Ravens [continuing.] Air, you see this sort of
checkered board style----
Chairman Begich. We think people from somewhere else did
that.
Dr. Ravens. Right, and so those lines, are ice edges. It is
ice and that's the weak point in the structure of the tundra,
so----
Chairman Begich. Got you, kind of a fault line or the
fracture lines?
Dr. Ravens. Those are exactly right.
Chairman Begich. And if I can turn to Melanie, and I will
come back to you, Thomas, on a couple of things--well, let me
just finish with you. You had mentioned there is some work you
are going do in Hooper Bay. How is that funded? Is that a sea
grant or is that--how is that----
Dr. Ravens. There was a national sea grant RFP that we
responded to. They funded 4 out of about 25 proposals, but not
ours. So we proposed this work, but it did not get funded.
Chairman Begich. So the real-time forecasting, and this is
very interesting what you are talking about, because I can
imagine NOAA folks are just ecstatic about this kind of
information that they can get their hands on. I do not know if
they are here with us.
Yes, this is the kind of stuff they love. There's Amy in
the back, so I am just guessing, this is like dreams for you to
be able to do real-time forecasting. Is the issue, and I think
I know the answer to this, but I just want to have you put it
on the record, I mean, there's not enough resource we are
putting into this kind of research, is that a fair statement?
Dr. Ravens. Well----
Chairman Begich. I mean, we are doing some, but not enough?
Dr. Ravens. Basically, what we are doing now is, I am
funded right now by the USGS.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Dr. Ravens. And the USGS Climate Center and also the
Western Alaska Landscape Conservation Cooperative and so we are
building all these tools and all I am saying is that while
these tools that we have built up, really for ecological
research, could really be put to service to help human
communities.
Chairman Begich. Right. To do better planning and
strategies?
Dr. Ravens. Basically, real-time, good information about;
OK, we know a storm is coming. What is the best science that's
available? What does that tell us the surge--what is the surge
going to be in front of my house? What's it going to be over
there? Is it going to be one meter? Is it going to be two
meters 12 hours from now?
Chairman Begich. Right.
Dr. Ravens. So that people have the information that they
need to plan. This is really what's happening in the Lower 48.
There is not really a comparable system in place in Alaska at
that resolution, as far as I understand it. It just so happens
that we have all the pieces in place to do this right now. We
just need someone to say, ``Do it,'' and kick in a little bit
of money and we could do it at a particular village as a
demonstration project.
We could demonstrate that, OK, these guys actually--they
were not making it up. They can actually produce these
projections. They're very accurate and then we will see, aha,
we can do this. It costs so many dollars. Is this something we
want to expand to other communities?
Chairman Begich. Can you, for the Committee, at some point,
prepare something that explains doing a demonstration project,
what it might entail, what kind of agency coordination and what
kind of costing would be required?
Dr. Ravens. Sure.
Chairman Begich. As best you can.
Dr. Ravens. Sure.
Chairman Begich. I mean, it is not something, especially on
the dollars, we would hold you, but just so I can get a better
sense. Would you do that for the Committee?
Dr. Ravens. I would be happy to.
Chairman Begich. Great. Let me, if I can, I am going to go
to both Melanie and Vivian and you heard me kind of describe to
Thomas--well, how I envision of this and I will start, if I
can, with you, Vivian, because I think in your comments, you
made some very positive statements about some of the work you
are doing, but also, the concern you have is how it is
affecting your, what is the right way to say it, your ability
to harvest for subsistence and other uses. What was just
described to me from an engineer/scientific, that is what you
are seeing? Is that a fair statement?
Ms. Korthuis. Yes.
Chairman Begich. And do you think of your 56 communities,
you had mentioned some have plans, some do not. Do you know how
many do have plans now, roughly?
Ms. Korthuis. Two years ago, we took a survey of our
communities to find out of the 56 Tribes, who has current
community plans, which obviously includes an emergency
preparedness plan, and of our 56 Tribes, only seven had current
plans.
Chairman Begich. Current plans.
Ms. Korthuis. And we have the survey that we took, we have
plans in our region that are from the 1970s to 1980s and maybe
the seven plans that were completed recently are actually 2
years old now.
Chairman Begich. OK, and is--weighting the biggest
stumbling block for the communities to develop those plans, is
it financial resources? Is it expertise? Is it expertise within
the Tribes?
Ms. Korthuis. No, I think the communities have the ability
to plan.
Chairman Begich. OK.
Ms. Korthuis. And I think the opportunity for those--the
Tribe, like the tribal government, the city government, the
health corporation, all the entities that are involved, the
schools, is the----
Chairman Begich. The village corporation?
Ms. Korthuis [continuing.] Opportunity for a facilitator to
come in and help the community lay it out.
Chairman Begich. So you think that the tools are there, it
is just someone needs to help just facilitate it?
Ms. Korthuis. Yes, with the funding.
Chairman Begich. That's the biggest challenge?
Ms. Korthuis. We would love to do that.
Chairman Begich. OK, let me ask you, from your region, are
you doing, one of the things we are talking about a lot here is
not only preparing for the emergencies, but the mitigation of
emergencies, getting prepared for what we know, like for
example, if we had this real-time forecasting, you could
probably see some of the villages that would, if certain surges
occur, what could really happen.
Do you have projects now that you are doing that are
preparing or kind of mitigating or preparing for potential
erosion situations, flooding situations, as the climate
continues to change and the sea levels change? Is there
projects that you are doing that you could describe?
Ms. Korthuis. I can not point to a specific project, but we
do have the ability to--our region is so large and we have so
many communities. We have 48 permanent settlements.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Ms. Korthuis. And they are all along two major rivers and
along the Bering Sea coast. I brought a map of our region, if
you want to refer to that.
Chairman Begich. OK.
Ms. Korthuis. So the map indicates that we have 840 miles
of coastline, just coastline, which does not include the Yukon
River and the Kuskokwim River. So each village has its own
particular environment. As a region, we are proposing to
create, what we are calling the Western Alaska Emergency
Response Center.
Chairman Begich. Right, you had mentioned that.
Ms. Korthuis. And encompassed in that is the ability to
take--coordination of the whole region in terms of anything
that we can witness; floods----
Chairman Begich. The erosion activity.
Ms. Korthuis [continuing.] Erosion, all those different
aspects of what's happening in our villages.
Chairman Begich. Is the idea of the center, would that be a
local, State, Federal type of funding source or what's your
thinking there?
Ms. Korthuis. Yes.
Chairman Begich. OK.
Ms. Korthuis. We would like to bring all the players
together for that.
Chairman Begich. Do you have a proposal already?
Ms. Korthuis. Yes, I do have a proposal.
Chairman Begich. Will you submit that to the Committee?
Ms. Korthuis. Yes, I will do that.
Chairman Begich. Fantastic. Let me ask Melanie, you have
heard some of the conversation we had. Let me ask you, you had
several recommendations and one of them, which you have talked
about, was the ability of better coordination and lead agency.
Would you be willing to expand on that and then, you mentioned
an action work group? Can you kind of help me understand that a
little bit more? I understand the lack of coordination, but
what is the action work that you are thinking of and then,
would that help get to that challenge?
Ms. Bahnke. Yes, thank you, Senator. The Immediate Action
Work Group began as an ad hoc group and it resulted in the U.S.
Corps of Engineers' 2009 recommendation report. Following that,
the creation of the Alaska Governor's Executive Subcabinet on
Climate Change.
The goal was to address known threats to communities caused
by coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, flooding and fires.
This working group was effective because key decisionmakers,
who actually had authority for resource allocation, were
involved from the various Federal, State and local governments.
They all participated in the early stages of the project
that were identified by priorities as the group were 100
percent federally funded from the Corps of Engineers under what
was Section 117 of the Energy and Water Development Act of
2005.
The next stages would have required a local match of 35
percent and the Corps would have provided a 35 percent match
and then the State would have provided the 65 percent funding.
In 2009, as you are aware, Congress repealed Section 117 and
then in 2010, Congress enacted Section 116, which requires
projects to be cost-shared.
One example of the amount of cost-share that would have
been required for a revetment project in Shishmaref is that the
local community would have had to come up with $6 to $8 million
dollars. This project was not completed.
So I think the model, itself, is a great model of
coordinating State, Federal and local leaders to prioritize
projects, coordinate their resources and actually carry out
projects.
Chairman Begich. If I can ask you now, does the Executive
Subcommittee, the Alaska Executive Subcommittee on Climate
still exist? Does any----
Ms. Bahnke. I am not aware----
Chairman Begich. I will ask the next panel. I was kind of
asking it through you, looking at the audience here. So I saw a
couple of acknowledgments here, that I'll be able to ask that
on the next panel. Let me followup on this then, so the idea--
one flexibility that you had also mentioned was, if there is
going to be a required match, which as you remember, the 2005
117 required no match for these areas, but if there is going to
be a match, then what you want to make sure happens is there is
flexibility so it is not just local community, but the State
can also match. Is that what you're also wanting to see happen?
Ms. Bahnke. I would prefer that the State be required to
provide the match. Our local communities have limited
resources. We don't have a tax base.
Chairman Begich. Understood.
Ms. Bahnke. Kawerak has utilized their own funds and put
them up as match toward several Corps of Engineer projects. In
fact, we have several projects right now that we're working on
with the Corps where we are providing tribal funds as the
match.
Chairman Begich. Great. I know the other issue around the
Corps, and that is this cost/benefit analysis, which I know
I'll talk to the Corps about on the next panel, but your point,
and I want to make sure I'm clear on this and I want to make
sure this is part of the record, the way that cost/benefit
analysis works really for communities of your size and Vivian's
communities, they are too small of populations and when you do
the analysis basis with population as a significant part or a
part of the equation, you can not compete against larger cities
that have bigger problems. Is that a fair statement?
Ms. Bahnke. Yes, that is a very fair statement.
Chairman Begich. And so what you are looking for is some,
at least, recognition because--I will use an example. In a
community with a big population, the erosion that may be
occurring that the Corps is doing the cost/benefit analysis, it
may be a small project, maybe it is a few homes, but because
the population is so big, it makes sense because the cost/
benefit analysis works, but in a village, you may have the
whole village disappearing into the ocean, but if there is not
a big enough population, the cost/benefit analysis does not
work. Is that----
Ms. Bahnke. Exactly.
Chairman Begich. OK, and I think we have recognized this
and it is something--we have talked to the Corps and we are
trying to figure out the right solution here, because if we can
find the right mix, and it may be that we have to recognize, as
we recently did in the piece of legislation, we changed some
language and we included what we call subsistence communities
in one of the definitions, which is for small and boat harbor
renovations, because what was happening, the definition was in
the Corps bill that just came out of the Senate, the
definition, it wouldn't have worked for us.
By adding that in, it creates an ability for small boat
harbors, small areas, small populations, villages to be able to
qualify for this money. So that is what, I guess, I am just
speaking out loud here, maybe that is the kind of language we
need to be speaking about, subsistence communities, because the
impact is much more dramatic than just a few homes. It is the
ability to survive.
Ms. Bahnke. Correct, and we can not just up and move. I
mean, we are not connected to roads.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Ms. Bahnke. It is not like if you are in a town in
Washington where you can just move, pick up your bags and move
to another town.
Chairman Begich. Well, it is like what happened when----
Ms. Bahnke. Permanent settlement where our people were
forced to settle in for the most part when the compulsory
education became a requirement.
Chairman Begich. Very good.
Ms. Bahnke. I would like to point that out because the
Federal Government had a hand in this.
Chairman Begich. Yes. No, your history, I appreciate you
putting that into the presentation. Because of time and we want
to get to the next panel, again, I want to thank all three
panelists that are here. We have your written testimony. There
will be some additional questions I will submit and, I will
talk about at the end of this meeting, I will submit for the
record for further questions, but I really do appreciate the
input and the folks who are on the ground, literally, living in
a changing environment in Alaska and Thomas, thank you for your
information and some interesting ideas on how to get better
data that can help us do better planning. So thank you all very
much.
We will pause for just a second while we change out panels
here and they do a lot of nameplate changing here. Thank you
all very much, Vivian, Melanie, Thomas, thanks.
Again, thank you for the next panel, and as the panel is
here, you heard some of the questions. The way I like to run,
at least the committee hearings I have and listening sessions
that I do, is you should feel comfortable as you are doing your
testimony, if there is an answer you want to give to any of the
questions that were derived in the first panel, feel free to do
that. That is fine with me. We just want to keep them to the
limits of time so I can kind of squeeze in as many questions as
possible.
I will do the same thing; I will introduce all of you and
then I will just start in the same order I did introductions.
First, David Miller is Associate Administrator for the Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. That is a big title. I am sure
there is some abbreviation for it that you will tell me about.
Mr. Miller has served in this position since 2011 and
previously served as Administrator of the Iowa Homeland
Security Emergency Management Division from 2004 to 2011.
Ken Murphy is the appointed Regional Administrator for FEMA
Region X. Mr. Murphy is responsible for developing,
administering, coordinating FEMA's mitigation, preparedness,
response, recovery programs for the State of Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon and Washington. Thank you for being here.
Colonel Christopher Lestochi, did I say that right?
Col. Lestochi. Very close, Senator.
Chairman Begich. Thank you very much, assumed command of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District on July 2,
2012. I always will say this; we like that Alaska has its own
district, just a little plug there.
Col. Lestochi. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Begich. John Madden is currently the Director of
the Division of Alaska Homeland Security and Emergency
Management and is not an unfamiliar face to this committee. He
has testified more than once and was appointed in 2007. John,
again, I was glad last night--was your last night as the
President of the National Emergency Management Association
(NEMA) and I know they had the forum here and they presented
you with a little recognition and again, congratulations for
your national role in NEMA as the President of the organization
and for Alaska, we thank you for kind of representing us on
that national level. So thank you very much for doing that.
Let me go ahead and start with David, and then we will just
kind of go down this line here.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID MILLER,\1\ ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
INSURANCE AND MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Miller. Thank you, sir. Chairman Begich, thank you for
the invitation to appear before the Subcommittee. I am David
Miller the Associate Administrator for the Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration of the Department of Homeland
Security--it is a long title. I agree, sir, and I do not----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on
page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Begich. I think the last comments from Melanie was
cut the red tape. So maybe she may cut those titles down.
Mr. Miller. As far as I said, I am an Associate
Administrator. I am not really an administrator. I just
associate with them. It is an honor to be here today, though,
with the other witnesses and represent the building of strong
partners in our efforts to help the people of Alaska build,
sustain and improve their capability to prepare for, protect
against, respond to, recover from and mitigate against
actually, not just the hazards, but the uniqueness of the
hazards and the circumstances that you face here in Alaska.
As the Subcommittee is aware, FEMA is the lead Federal
agency responsible for coordinating disaster response, recovery
and mitigation efforts following Presidentially declared
emergencies and we use our programs and authorities that have
been authorized by Congress and the President to meet the needs
of the community. Our programs are intended to supplement that
response activities and recovery programs of States, local
governments and Tribes through grants, as well as through
technical and planning assistance.
Our mitigation programs are guided by the National
Mitigation Framework, which serves as a common platform for
coordinating and addressing how the Nation manages risk. The
framework also offers guidance on how the whole community can
work together to build resiliency and reduce long-term
vulnerability.
I would like to tell you about specific programs we offer
to aid communities in Alaska and across America. Our Pre-
Disaster Programs include the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant
Program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and the A
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program funds mitigation
projects and planning efforts identified and prioritized in
State and local mitigation plans. This competitive grant
program is funded through the annual appropriations process and
includes projects such as the development of all hazard
mitigation plans, seismic retrofitting of critical public
buildings and the acquisition or relocation of flood prone
properties located within flood plains.
The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program provides funding
for structures located in the NFIP, participating communities.
It includes projects to alleviate, relocate and acquire flood
prone structures, as well as projects to upgrade culverts,
building detention ponds and improve local storm water
management facilities.
Flood Grant Programs in Alaska include $600,000 provided to
the coastal village of Shishmaref in 1998 for relocation of
nine homes to higher ground. The NFIP, the Flood Insurance
Program, currently has 32 participating communities in Alaska,
representing boroughs, cities, towns and Alaska Native
villages.
Collectively, they maintain $735 million in flood insurance
coverage. Since 1978, the NFIP has paid 581 claims for $5.9
million to Alaska residents. Twenty-eight of the 3,022 policies
statewide, are subject to coastal flooding or 3,022 communities
statewide are subject to coastal flooding and erosion hazards.
Many of those communities have elected to participate in
the NFIP--are also eligible to participate in the community
rating system, which provides a flood insurance premium
discount for property owners who engage in flood plain
management activities.
Community participation in the CRS in Alaska is relatively
high when considering the State's small number of NFIP
participating communities in the national average, with 18
percent participating. Here in Anchorage, the community
receives a 20 percent discount on their premiums through their
participation in the NFIP and CRS.
FEMA also offers assistance to State tribes and communities
and individuals following disasters through its Public
Administration Program, Individuals and Households Program and
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The Public Assistance
Program offers assistance for the restoration of public and
certain private nonprofit facilities damaged by an event and
reimburses cost associated with emergency protective measures
and debris removal.
The Individual and Households Program helps ensure the
essential needs of individuals and families are met after
disasters so they can begin the road to successful recovery.
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program provides grants to State,
local, and tribal governments to implement long-term hazard
mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration.
Of the $29.6 million in Hazard Mitigation Grant funds,
obligated in Alaska since the inception of the program, $7.5
million or 25 percent has been spent on relocation projects for
Alaska Native villages.
While erosion control may be an eligible project under the
HMGP, the scope of erosion in Shishmaref, for example, would
require a major project, generally implemented by agencies,
such as the Corps of Engineers, which has specific authority
for these types of projects.
FEMA does not fund major flood control projects of provide
assistance for activities for which another Federal program has
a more specific or primary authority to provide.
In conclusion, FEMA will continue to be an active partner
in efforts to address the complex vulnerabilities in Alaska and
we are committed to doing whatever is within our authority to
help the people of this great State. We are aware of the unique
challenges on the ground and will continue to work with our
partners through our regional office to develop creative
solutions to meet the needs of Alaskans resilient people. Thank
you and I would be very happy to answer any questions you may
have, sir.
TESTIMONY OF KENNETH MURPHY,\1\ REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR REGION
X, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Chairman Begich for the invitation
to testify before the Committee today. I have seen many
familiar faces in my last 3 years here working and improving
with the State and local communities' emergency management for
all Alaskans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy appears in the Appendix on
page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At FEMA, we are aware of the unique issues and challenges
that Alaskans face preparing for and recovering from a
disaster. We also appreciate and try to understand fully the
environmental challenges and we acknowledge that FEMA is only
part of the team dedicated to responders, who work together to
ensure that we are ready to respond to imminent disasters in
the Arctic.
Together, we determine how to apply the right programs and
resources in a way that prioritizes the needs of the survivors.
We look to all of our partners to bring their best ideas and
solutions to the hazards and the environmental conditions
facing Alaskans.
Survivors deserve the whole spectrum of services, resources
and programs available at each level of the government. No
single agency will be able to meet all the needs at one time.
It is truly a whole community effort.
Today, I will just highlight a few examples of what FEMA is
doing in Alaska to improve our ability to respond effectively
during extreme weather events and more importantly, provide
some examples of ways we are supporting community and state-
based efforts to identify hazards, reduce vulnerabilities and
increase resilience.
First and foremost, communities need to have access to
current information to assess their vulnerability, create
strategic plans, prioritize hazard mitigation strategies. Over
the last 5 years, FEMA has provided over $2 million to the
State to support local planning through Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Programs.
Ninety-three communities currently have an adopted
mitigation plan. Each of these plans are formed by local
feedback and in many cases, multiple jurisdictions participated
in the entire planning process. With these planning efforts, we
have also explored several low-cost projects to design
community-specific vulnerabilities, including regionally, a
35,000 retrofit program project here in Anchorage and in
Kodiak.
Another crucial step in increasing community resilience is
through active participation and large-scale exercises, like
the upcoming Alaska shield exercise. Region X is partnering
with the State of Alaska in its biannual exercise Alaska shield
series going back to 2005.
In 2010, FEMA sent over 50 staff and several emergency
vehicles to Alaska to participate in this exercise. Through
real-time simulations, we have tested the State and FEMA's
ability to perform critical functions in extreme cold weather
conditions, as well as our ability to sustain first responders
arriving in from the Lower 48 States.
2014, FEMA will again be committing to substantial
resources to participate in the exercise celebrating the 50-
year anniversary of the 1964 earthquake and we will be working
on testing on the ability to do our job in conjunction with the
State to deal with severe disasters up here, survivors in
extreme cold weather conditions.
One final example of our regional capacity to meet the
needs of rural Alaskan communities is our disaster response in
the community of Eagle. In June 2009, the Yukon River flooded
causing major damage resulting in a Presidential disaster
declaration. During the earliest days of the response, we
worked with the community and our partners of this State to
develop a strategy to better understand how vulnerable the
community was to spring breakup.
Region X experts developed a series of products that helped
the community and helped them make very difficult decisions to
not rebuild in the hazardous areas of Eagle. Our priorities to
create these tools and support the immediate and long-term
recovery needs of local survivors.
Eagle was flooded again this spring, but only six homes
were damaged. The old village of Eagle suffered no impacts
where we actually moved the homes. The citizens, as a group and
as a community, chose to relocate outside the hazard areas
defined by our analysis in 2009. Eagle is safer and a more
resilient community today due to the collective efforts of many
response agencies.
We are committed to providing quality information, programs
and products that give communities the tools they need to make
informed decisions about risk. Harsh climates, environmental
challenges necessitate proactive choices and a unified
response. I am a firm believer that today's preparations
predict tomorrow's outcomes. In Alaska, we are working
tirelessly with our partners to ensure a safer tomorrow for
Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Begich. Thank you very much. Colonel.
TESTIMONY OF COLONEL CHRISTOPHER D. LESTOCHI,\1\ DISTRICT
COMMANDER ALASKA DISTRICT, PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION, DEPARTMENT
OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERING
Col. Lestochi. Chairman Begich, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss coastal storm
damage and erosion issues in Alaska. Today, I will provide
everyone a brief review of Corps erosion authorities and
programs, highlight some of the challenges regarding coastal
erosion affecting Alaska communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Colonel Lestochi appears in the
Appendix on page 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps has several civil works authorities to address
flooding and erosion problems. These Congressional
authorizations include the Continuing Authorities Program, the
Planning Assistance to States Program, the Tribal Partnership
Program, the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies authority,
and Alaska-specific authorizations, such as Section 116 of the
2010 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act relating to Alaska flood, erosion and ice
damage. Each of these authorities has different implementing
rules and limitations.
In addressing erosion problems, the Corps works closely
with local, State, Federal, tribal, and private interests to
understand and incorporate the concerns represented by these
various stakeholders. The Corps weighs the concerns, balances
the needs, and examines the risks, costs and benefits to
determine Federal interest and to make technically,
environmentally, socially, and economically sound risk-informed
decisions. I would like to outline the authorities related to
coastal erosion and what we've accomplished under them.
Specifically highlighting two authorities, which I will call
Section 117 and Section 116, which were created for the unique
needs of Alaska. My written testimony contains information
regarding the other Corps programs and authorities that can
address erosion issues.
Section 117, now repealed, of the fiscal year 2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act authorizes the Secretary of the
Army to carry out at full Federal expense structural and non-
structural projects for storm damage prevention and reduction,
coastal erosion and ice and glacial damage in Alaska, including
relocation of affected communities and construction of
replacement facilities. The Corps has utilized this authority.
At Kivalina, 2,000 feet of shoreline protection was installed
between 2008-2009. At Shishmaref, 1,375 feet of shoreline
protection was installed between 2007-2009, and at Unalakleet,
671 feet of shoreline protection was initiated or installed
between 2007-2009.
Section 117 was repealed in 2009. A new authority, Section
116 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010, provides a similar authority,
however; Section 116 requires cost sharing of up to 35 percent
non-Federal, whereas Section 117 had no cost sharing
requirement.
The only Section 116 construction project undertaken to
date is at Unalakleet, under the Alaska Coastal Erosion
program, where the existing 671 feet of revetment is currently
being extended to 1,500 feet. Appropriations under the heading
of the Alaska Coastal Erosion program have been provided to
fund projects using the Section 116 authority.
As noted in the June 2004 Government Accountability Office
report on Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and
erosion, it's often difficult for the majority of Alaska's
small and remote communities to finance and meet the multiple
criteria required for Federal participation in implementing a
solution. The remoteness of many of the areas, severe weather
conditions, and the subsistence economies of the communities
are major contributing factors. Perhaps the biggest challenges
are the costs and risks associated with implementing erosion
control solutions in these often remote communities. These
include high mobilization costs, the limited construction
season, and the difficulty of obtaining and transporting
adequate rock and other materials.
The March 2009 Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment
identified 178 communities that reported erosion problems.
Twenty-six of them were deemed to warrant immediate attention.
All 26 communities were contacted regarding ways the Corps
could assist the communities. Six currently have active
projects with the Corps. The remainder either did not request
assistance or their projects were found to not meet the
requirements of existing Corps programs or the non-Federal
sponsor could not meet the cost-share requirements.
The risks associated with the coastal erosion challenges in
Alaska are complex. Risk considerations include determining the
acceptable level of protection from erosion and flooding,
deciding whether to relocate or remain, and consideration of
the economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts.
The Corps has the technical expertise to address solutions
based on a systems approach and the capability to communicate
and assist with risk-informed decisionmaking associated with
the complex storm damage and erosion problems in Alaska's
coastal villages. We are proud to work in collaboration with
many Federal, State and local and tribal entities to assist in
recommending and implementing solutions for coastal erosion
challenges faced by these communities. Mr. Chairman, this
concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today and look forward to answering any questions you
may have.
Chairman Begich. Thank you, Colonel. John, thank you,
again, for being here.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. MADDEN,\1\ DIRECTOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Madden. Well, thank you, sir, for this hearing and this
opportunity to present the State perspective in this dialogue
on preparedness for all of our Alaskan communities and
especially those most directly affected by extreme weather.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Madden appears in the Appendix on
page 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our State faces an extreme range of hazards, from nature,
from humans and from technology and we are no stranger to
disaster. We have experienced a declared disaster on average
every ninety days since statehood and the State of Alaska seems
to create and sustain a posture of preparedness enabling a
swift coordinated response, enabling an immediate comprehensive
recovery.
Our State handles most disasters with local and State
resources. For the remainder, we do request assistance from the
President, and here is just a short list, not a comprehensive
list of our recent disasters; in 2007, a storm hit Kivalina
with wave surges threatening to breach the barrier island. In
2008, three separate storms from the Pacific and Arctic and the
Bering caused severe floods in Nenana and breached the seawall
in Wainwright.
In 2009, Mount Redoubt volcano erupted 19 times from March
to July, during which we had pandemic H1N1 in April and the
breakup of the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers in May flooding
dozens of communities with Eagle, Stevens Village and Tanana,
the hardest hit and 527 fires burned close to three million
acres.
In 2010, a late season Bering Sea storm through--sea spray
drawn from rare open water onto power lines onto Savoonga
causing widespread power outage.
In 2011, Crooked Creek on the Kuskokwim lost many
residences in May from extreme flood and ice, and an extra
tropical typhoon in October damaged dozens of western and
northwestern communities with storm surges and high winds.
In 2012, intensive January storms brought record snowfall
throughout the Prince William Sound communities and in
September and October, other storms hit south central Alaska
with damaging winds up to 130 miles-per-hour and widespread
flooding across 60,000 square miles and this year, in 2013, the
Yukon River breakup, again, hit communities from Eagle to
Emmonak with the heaviest damages at Galena and Circle.
The common factor throughout all these events is that we
cannot rely upon the 30-year weather averages to guide our
planning, rather, we must expect the unexpected and plan for
the uncertainty.
In doing so, we consider the effects of the season, even
the time of day, the demographics of the community, those with
functional needs and we invest in the capabilities with the
greatest probability of reducing risks, perhaps for more than
one risk or hazard.
Many of our recent disasters occurred for the first time in
each location in 30, 40, or even 100 years. Decades without a
disaster does not decrease the possibility or probability of
one happening tomorrow. Early in its administration, the
Governor directed us to develop essential capabilities that
could be counted upon under all conditions and throughout the
State.
We have multi-tiered emergency communication system,
completely independent of the commercial systems. We have a
cache of emergency generators Arctic retrofitted and
transportable by air, land and sea. We have a similar cache of
water purification systems ready for deployment. In the last
year, we developed the small community emergency response guide
that distills many plans into a format for swift and decisive
action. It even has a hole in it, so you can hang it on the
wall so you can get to it very fast.
The Governor's priority and the consistent support from our
Legislature have enabled the transformation of Alaskan
preparedness from a reaction into a discipline. March 2014 does
mark the 50th anniversary of our 1964 Good Friday earthquake
and we will commemorate that event with the largest, most
complex exercise in our history.
In the Alaska Shield 2012 exercise, we will simulate breaks
in our supply lines and work to fix them. We will simulate
disruption to essential services and work to bring them back.
We will simulate separation of families and strive to reunite
them and the consequences of the catastrophic earthquake mirror
those of the extreme weather.
In summary, the State of Alaska faces threats, hazards and
risks far disproportionate to our population and our people,
our economy, even our culture, are at risk of severe disruption
if we leave our preparedness to chance.
Our experiences with extreme weather in recent years
require us to learn from the past, but not be blinded by it.
Our greatest risks are the ones that we do not anticipate and
for which we do not prepare, but through the leadership of the
State, support of our communities, involvement with all of our
partners, Alaska is a leader in the Nation in emergency
management and our citizens deserve no less. Sir, with that, I
will yield for all questions.
Chairman Begich. Thank you very much. Thanks to the panel.
Thank you for all the information and again, the same thing
with the last panel, all your written testimony will be part of
the official record and I appreciate that. I'll try to move
through some questions. Time will limit me and I'll probably
submit some for the record for some followup.
Let me first, if I can, I want to start with the
representatives from FEMA. A couple of things, first off, I
know I had a hearing, I think it was a few months ago, where we
talked about FEMA's Preparedness Grant Program. They delivered
about 50 billion in preparedness grants over the years since
the Department of Homeland Security was created.
Do you know how much, and if you don't know this, maybe for
the record you can get it for me, how much of that money in
those grants for preparedness went to looking at mitigation
capabilities? I don't know if you know that answer. If you
don't know, don't guess, because that's a big chunk of money,
since Homeland Security was started, but how much actually went
to mitigation components?
Mr. Miller. I think the answer lies in this, Senator, in
that within the mitigation programs and within the flood
mitigation programs under the National Flood Insurance Program,
there are some allocations for planning that we have every year
and we can get you the answer on how much of that money has
been used.
Chairman Begich. That would be great.
Mr. Miller. That, notwithstanding, when you mentioned the
Preparedness Grants----
Chairman Begich. Right.
Mr. Miller. These kinds of activities are also eligible
under the EMPG Program, the grants----
I have the wrong acronym, John.
Mr. Madden. Emergency Management Performance Grant.
Mr. Miller. Yes, under those grants and the problem with
the----
The problem with the EMPG grants is there is a lot of other
eligible activities, too. So sometimes to pull out the planning
activity and then how much of that is----
Chairman Begich. Yes, it may be difficult.
Mr. Miller [continuing.] Actual mitigation will be
difficult.
Chairman Begich. OK. If you can, for the Committee, get as
much as that--as close as you can feel that, you can justify,
this, we feel, is planning money for mitigation, because one of
the things, as you know, in FEMA's list and also in our
jurisdiction of the Committee, it's not only emergency
preparedness, it's not only first responders, but mitigation
and when you talk about a lot of what's happening here, besides
the list that John gave, which is an impressive list in a
negative way of all of our disasters, but good that we manage
them, is how do we mitigate, especially as we are not looking
at some of these issues with erosion and water temperature
changes and other things. So if you could--that would be very
helpful, I think.
On top of that, you mentioned insurance and I want to,
again, for either one of you, David or Kenneth, whichever one
feels comfortable answering this, I know of the 225 Tribes or
so, we have 100, I think, are qualified or could go and get
flood insurance. I know the FEMA administrator has said that
they want to move Tribes on a higher priority in flood prone
areas to really figure out how to engage them in this process.
Can you tell me what efforts FEMA is doing? I know the
administrators talked about this, of getting Tribes who are in
flood prone areas that could qualify for that insurance to get
them focused and potentially applying for that. I do not know
if you have an answer to that, but that, to me, is one of the
parts of this equation, because if they are not applying, there
is something--and they are qualified and the administrator has
made it a priority, there is a gap. Somehow there is something
missing here, so----
Mr. Murphy. Senator, I know we work with the State on this
all the time, to try and reach out together so that we combine
our efforts. There is no formalized plan. We try and analyze
the communities and then reach out to them to work with them to
see what it would take to get them to join into the National
Flood Insurance Program and preferably and hopefully become
part of the community rating system, which can then decrease
policy costs and that kind of thing, but we work through the
communities and especially in each one of our disasters, if we
have the opportunity, we will talk to the communities to see if
they're eligible and work with them.
Chairman Begich. You heard again from the last testimony,
especially from the two that represented communities, this
frustration and I am, as well, frustrated and that is what--
who's the lead agency on this type of issue, extreme weather
changes that are occurring? I will use Alaska to New York.
We just saw an incredible surge and I just saw one of the
maps that if, and I forget the exact language that Thomas used,
but if it had changed just a little bit more in the sense of
the sea level rising so many meters, how deeper that would have
gone into New York, Manhattan, everywhere else, who is--or if
there is not, what should be the right group to really take
charge of this, and I am going to lead to this, because I am
going to jump over to the Corps in a second, as well as the
State, because what I am sensing is everyone's doing kind of
stuff and I think it is great, each piece, but there is this
bigger picture of mitigation, because we don't want you all to
keep repeating, like I will use the example, which I thought
was a good one, which was Eagle, if I remember right.
By mitigating the future, by moving those homes, we
prevented the homes you rebuilt from being flooded, which is
exactly what we want to do and not just homes, but preventing
communities--and we are in a situation where we know it is
going to happen. Like in New York, it was like a storm that
occurred that no one anticipated. We can tell by modeling
what's happening by sea level rise in communities where we are
just a little bit above sea level and it is going to happen. So
who is that person or that agency, whoever? David.
Mr. Miller. I think it is in two parts. If you look at
climate and climate adaptation issues as we are going through
it and the President's directive on that----
Chairman Begich. Right.
Mr. Miller [continuing.] What we are finding is a lot of
discussion on the data, how we look at the data and how it
applies to existing programs and we are doing it within FEMA in
our existing Stafford Act authorities and how we look at
mitigation.
We are looking at information on how we inform versus how
we regulate within those environments, how we analyze data for
benefit-cost and bring that in, but probably the better answer
to your question; over this last year, we developed the
mitigation framework that was recently released.
Within that framework, it talks about the Mitigation
Federal Leadership Group. We have had our first meeting of that
leadership group, but we have done something----
Chairman Begich. Who is the players in that? Do you
remember right offhand?
Mr. Miller. I can get you the complete list, but----
Chairman Begich. Can you get us the list for it?
Mr. Miller. It virtually involves almost every Federal
agency. So it is the Corps of Engineers. It's the Department of
Transportation (DOT), Department of Defense (DOD). It is----
Chairman Begich. And what's the exact title they call it
now?
Mr. Miller. The Mitigation Federal Leadership Group.
Chairman Begich. OK.
Mr. Miller. But beyond that, a little bit different than
the other leadership groups for the other components in that
Federal piece, we are looking to expand our leadership group to
include local and State partners and that's the part we are
working through right now.
So whether we enjoy the association that John was just the
President of, the National Emergency Management Association----
Chairman Begich. Indiscernible--speaking simultaneously----
Mr. Miller [continuing.] The International Association of
Flood Plain Managers, we are looking for that participation in
the Mit FLG, as well as the Federal agencies that come in and
local government agencies and roles, as well. We really want
that mitigation framework, as it calls for, to exemplify the
whole community aspects of mitigation and the investment and
that may even include some private and private nonprofit
enterprises in there. As that matures, to answer your questions
and the coordination indiscernible--speaking simultaneously----
Chairman Begich. You see that as the evolution?
Mr. Miller. We will see that as the evolution.
Chairman Begich. On top of that, I would recommend, and
this is always--and I know the President has a directive on
tribal consultation, to make sure that Tribes are part of this
equation, because----
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Chairman Begich [continuing.] When you look at--it doesn't
matter if it's just Alaska Tribes, but Lower 48 Tribes, water
is land (sic) is the essence of being in the sense of their
culture and their communities.
Mr. Miller. Right.
Chairman Begich. And when there are floods or there are
lack of resources now coming because of erosion or flood or
other activities, they are unable to survive, so----
Mr. Miller. Well----
Chairman Begich. When you list off, and I appreciate there
were associations, the State agencies, but there is some good
strong tribal organizations that I think would be very helpful
in this mix of the next kind of layer.
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir, and Tribes will be a big part of
that. What we are working to understand now, as we go through
this, plus the changes in our relationship with tribal
government, the ability to ask for declarations, those things
that (indiscernible--speaking simultaneously)----
Chairman Begich. Right, which is a new part of the
equation, which we really find as a great addition that----
Mr. Miller [continuing.] Would be really (indiscernible--
speaking simultaneously)----
Chairman Begich [continuing.] Now Tribes can request
declaration of emergency, instead of waiting for the States--
whatever their ability or their lack of ability, it is----
Unidentified Speaker. (Indiscernible--too far from
microphone).
Chairman Begich. Yes, I know, the number is----
Mr. Miller. Yes, there are some required consultations that
we do and one of----
Chairman Begich. Yes.
Mr. Miller [continuing.] The things that the staff is
working to understand, especially with tribal governments, is
the authorities they have. One tribal government is not the
same as another.
Chairman Begich. Exactly.
Mr. Miller. So land use authority is the ability to
regulate, which----
Chairman Begich. Right.
Mr. Miller [continuing.] Dovetails with the authority to
(indiscernible--speaking simultaneously)----
Chairman Begich. Like our Tribes, we have some that have
land use authority. Some do not.
Mr. Miller. Right, but we will walk through all of those
things and it is our goal to get representation from the Tribes
within the Mitigation FLG and how we walk through those
processes.
Chairman Begich. Yes. Let me, if I can, This is going to be
kind of a question here, but moving over to the Corps at the
same time, and that is, do you right now, if, for example, the
Corps has a list of, two or three projects or I think you
mentioned six communities you are doing some work with or so
you have a list.
Do you take both of you guys' lists and say, ``OK, we're
about to do some preparedness planning in X community. You are
doing some emergency planning or mitigation work or erosion
work,'' does that happen or is that going to be the future of
this group, because here's what I am going to use my simple way
of looking at this.
If I am the community, I will use Anchorage here, for
example, I got to FEMA. I want some planning money. I want some
preparedness money. So I apply for that, but I also have
erosion issues, some other situations. So I go over here to the
Corps and I talk to them.
I am coordinating all the different things because I have
to, but from the Federal agency standpoint, you are just
getting these independent request, because I mean, my Corps
request to you is not necessarily saying I am applying over
here, even though they are different kinds of funding and
different purposes or I am going to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) and saying I need some of this
dollar (sic) for replacement housing.
Does that occur or is that something that we want to
emphasize for this new group or is it something that we have to
think of separately so we are not doing bits and pieces from
each one? Does that make sense? I don't even know, John, from
your end, I know from the State, you are doing your piece, but
I can tell you, from a local government, I'm just sitting here
thinking, I do not ever recall us, when we went to the Corps,
we did not go to FEMA to tell you what we were doing with the
Corps. I knew what we were doing, but then you did not know. So
give me some feedback and then I will flip over to
(indiscernible--speaking simultaneously)----
Mr. Miller. I will have the Colonel speak to this, too,
because the Corps has done some very extensive work in this
area. For our part in FEMA, there are some requirements that we
have, especially in the mitigation and insurance programs and
how we look at risk to coordinate with the Corps, also with the
National Weather Service and a number of other Federal
agencies, both in the assessment of the risk and the projects
that we coordinate.
One of the things that we are active with the Corps with,
and perhaps the Colonel can talk about and I was whispering to
John or to Ken as we were sitting there, is the Silver Jackets
Program.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Mr. Miller. So you get an inner-agency cooperation and
consolidation on top of that, but you are right, the further
coordination and to move this along, even to a greater extent,
will happen under organizational structures like the Mit FLG,
because it is not just the Corps of Engineers and it also
involves the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of
Transportation and others that play a role in mitigation
projects and how we thread those together.
Chairman Begich. I will give you one--as I flip over to the
Corps here, I will give you an example. When I was Mayor, the
first 3 months of being Mayor of Anchorage, I remember, we had
State roads. We have city roads. We had some local jurisdiction
up in the hillside. So everyone was applying for their own
thing. We had our road list for our Metropolitan Planning Area
and then we had our Capital Grant money, different criteria of
determining what's a priority and honestly, I stopped it all
and I said, ``Here's what we are going to do; we do not care
who the roads are owned by. We are going to prioritize them at
the same prioritization of what's a risk,'' and we created, I
think it was 10 points of prioritization, safety, so forth, and
then we said, ``Wherever they fall, we do not care if they are
State, Federal, local or local road district, wherever they
fall, then we start down the list,'' and we had a lot of,
resistence from--and I don't know if Thomas is still here, but
I know from the Corps, I get it, if you are an engineer, and I
do not know if you are an engineer by trade, but as an
engineer, they are on a straight line, do not deviate. We are
on a plan, do not start moving it around, and I remember we had
lots of projects we had to say, ``No, they are not a priority
anymore.''
The end result was, to be very frank with you, in this
city, we built more roads in 5 years than we built in 20,
because we did not base it on jurisdiction. We based it on a
mutual agreement of what's a priority and then attacked the
problem with all resources, State, Federal and local and the
net result was for--the people who live here know how many
roads were constructed very quickly.
So in this situation, my worry is we have a list of 26 or
so pretty risky villages, in the sense of what could happen to
them with a smaller list in there, a subset, and all hands on
deck should be for those. So maybe you could additionally
answer from that--I just want to give that example of where my
concern's coming from based on my experience dealing with
multiple layers on road construction issues.
Col. Lestochi. I think to your first point, sir, about lead
agency, I really think it depends on the nature, the mission
that we are talking about. If it is a coastal erosion
mitigation effort, then clearly, that's the Corps. If it is,
housing, it is HUD. It changes from mission to mission.
Chairman Begich. But let me pause you on that. If you are
now dealing with erosion and there are houses falling into the
water, someone has to lead this overall effort, because you----
Col. Lestochi. Yes.
Chairman Begich [continuing.] You could say, ``I'm going to
solve the erosion problem,'' and then HUD comes along and says,
``Well, where are we going to build those houses? You just took
all the land we were going to put it in.'' So that's what I'm
thinking of, is what's that body, and maybe it is this new
group that says, ``This is how it has to be done,'' and then
from there, there may have to me a regional approach to these
issues because mitigation is so different than emergency
response, because emergency response is immediate. Mitigation
is prolonged emergency. When we look at erosion, we look at
water depths changing, I will use tsunamis also, the debris
that's coming over, these are prolonged disasters that are kind
of creeping up. We can actually map them and we know they are
coming. It is just the question of; what do we do?
So I do not want to totally disagree with you, but I am
concerned that that's the problem, because if you are taking
away erosion, right, and we want you to do that, to solve that
problem, but now the houses are gone, we have not solved a
community problem and that the right place to do that erosion
(indiscernible)? Maybe it is not. Maybe it is saying we should
go somewhere else and relocate the village because the village
decides they need to move to higher land. I do not know. Go
ahead, I did not mean to interrupt you there, I just----
Col. Lestochi. No, that's perfectly all right. I do not
have the answer which Federal agency--I'm certainly not going
to sign up my agency to be the----
Chairman Begich. I am going to sign you up right now.
Col. Lestochi [continuing.] Federal agency for all things,
but----
Chairman Begich. Do not worry, Colonel, I will just pass
onto the folks back in D.C. you agreed. They will thank you for
testifying.
Col. Lestochi. But I do know we work closely with our
agency partners on these matters. Take, for example, Kivalina--
--
Chairman Begich. Yes.
Col. Lestochi. There, we built some shoreline protection,
at least we got it partially completed and there was some
discussion about relocation of the community, potentially, and
so we do talk to other agencies about what their plans are and
we provide them information from the engineering perspective,
advise them on----
Chairman Begich. Do you think that idea would be helpful?
Col. Lestochi. I think there's merit to it and just
thinking along the lines of the FEMA model that we are using
now, so we respond to a disaster in a place like Galena and we
work together as an agency----
Chairman Begich. Right.
Col. Lestochi [continuing.] To support the State.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Col. Lestochi. And now, we are getting to transitioning to
a phase where we are looking at the long-term recovery of the
community.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Col. Lestochi. And as we start down that road, there's yet
another committee, if you will, of Federal agencies that----
Chairman Begich. (Indiscernible--speaking simultaneously)
efforts.
Col. Lestochi [continuing.] Are coordinating the efforts
with the State to come up with that long-term plan. Perhaps a
model like that could be used for mitigation.
Chairman Begich. In a broader sense for mitigation.
Col. Lestochi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Begich. Let me ask you, and I am going to jump to
John here real quick, because I know my time's running here,
but under 116, the match that's required, the Corps really
does--I mean, does the language prohibit--well, I think what
the local communities were saying is they want the State to pay
for it all. I get that, but the language does not prohibit the
State from paying for it or does it?
Col. Lestochi. It does not prohibit the State.
Chairman Begich. OK, because the Corps does not care where
that match comes from, as long as there's a match, is that a
fair statement?
Col. Lestochi. Yes, sir.
Chairman Begich. John, do not worry, I will not say to the
Governor you committed to 100 percent pay for it, but I have an
idea I will discuss with you later, but the cost-benefit ratio,
this has always been a struggle. Is that fair to say to the
Corps, in Alaska's situation?
Col. Lestochi. Absolutely, I mean, you cited the example of
the small remote subsistence harbors.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Col. Lestochi. One of those harbors competing on a benefit-
cost ration using our rules with, the ports on the east coast,
it will (indiscernible--speaking simultaneously) never work.
Chairman Begich. We would never win.
Col. Lestochi. So there were pots created----
Chairman Begich. Right, to help solve that problem.
Col. Lestochi [continuing.] To help solve that problem.
Chairman Begich. And from a Corps perspective, and I do not
want to put words in your mouth, so if you do not want to
answer this or disagree, feel free to, that is, I can only
imagine, I mean, my father-in-law passed away about 2 years
ago, he was a Corps, as you know, he was a Colonel in the Corps
and I know these things frustrated him because he wanted to do
the mission, but because of our rules, and I say ``ours,''
meaning the Federal Government legislatively, we set the rules
and then you have to operate by them.
There must be some level of frustration when you see
these--it is just--when you see the project makes so much sense
to go do, but you are restricted and the village ca not afford
it and here you are looking at a project and you say, ``Well,
wish we could, but can not, because the rules are what they
are.'' Is that a fair statement?
You do not have to answer if you do not want to. I do not
want to put you in a box, but I used to know from the
experience and discussions I had with people who work in the
Corps, it is the most frustrating thing I hear. They know this
is something they could go in and attack and go after. They see
the mission, but they are just frustrated that they ca not do
it because the rules are what they are and they have limited
funds.
Col. Lestochi. We are required to operate within the limits
of our authorities.
Chairman Begich. Right, I know. It is more of a rhetorical
question, I guess, sorry about that, but I know the
frustration. Let me close out with John, if I can? John, I
asked the question earlier and I do not know if you could have
answered it either, but on the--the Subcabinet on Climate, I do
not know if it is still active, and then there's underneath
that, the working group or the subworking group, I do not know
what it was called. Tell me, are either one of those active
still and what's their activity or----
Mr. Madden. Well (indiscernible--speaking simultaneously)--
--
Chairman Begich [continuing.] If you don't have an answer,
don't----
Mr. Madden. Yes, sir, for a little bit of background,
concurrent with the very powerful storm that hit Kivalina, that
threatened it in September 2007----
Chairman Begich. Yes.
Mr. Madden [continuing.] Governor Palin created the
Subcabinet on Climate Change led by----
Chairman Begich. Correct.
Mr. Madden [continuing.] The Commissioner for the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Chairman Begich. Yes, I remember this here.
Mr. Madden. The first action by that Subcabinet was to
create two processes. One was a citizen engagement looking at
infrastructure, invasive species, cultural, many of those
public participation. The second part of it was the formation
of the Immediate Action Work Group.
Chairman Begich. Right.
Mr. Madden. And I was a member of that, as well as the
Corps of Engineers, State Department of Transportation, NOAA.
Chairman Begich. A variety of agencies.
Mr. Madden. Several, and she was right that we were charged
with being the people with authorities and capabilities, but to
look at the immediacy, what can be done, what must be done
within the next 18 to 24 months as the longer public
examination process took and the policy process (sic).
Within that, the first thing we did was look at all of
these studies, all the reports and determine the ones that were
really greatest at risk that needed immediate action and that
turned out to be Kivalina, Shishmaref, Shaktoolik, Unalakleet,
Newtok, Koyukuk----
Chairman Begich. Right, Newtok, right.
Mr. Madden. And for those, some of them resulted in actual
construction projects.
Chairman Begich. (Indiscernible--speaking simultaneously)
right.
Mr. Madden. We appropriated within just a few months----
Chairman Begich. Well, like Newtok is moving, correct?
Mr. Madden. And the primary one was on Kivalina, where the
State committed that with our own appropriations to do a very--
--
Chairman Begich. A (indiscernible--speaking
simultaneously)----
Mr. Madden [continuing.] Advanced shoreline stabilization
for the southern part of the island and which the Corps then,
through their authorities, we linked up.
Chairman Begich. Got you.
Mr. Madden. And that has held. For each and all of the
other communities and many others beyond, we did a
comprehensive suite of plans, full-blown hazard mitigation
plans, full emergency operations and response and----
Chairman Begich. Preparedness.
Mr. Madden. [continuing.] For each one of those, determined
a safe haven so they can have an evacuation plan, that has
continued to a great extent with hundreds of communities around
the State and particularly on the Climate Change Subcabinet
does not meet as such because we strove to put it into the
mainstream.
Chairman Begich. OK.
Mr. Madden. To have climate and standards and the other
things put into the mainline budget.
Chairman Begich. Can I ask you this, John, and then again,
I apologize, our clock is ticked here, I have some other
questions I will submit for the record, that you can prepare
from your office that says, ``Here's what we did in that
Immediate Action Working Group and then here are kind of the
actions we took? '' In other words, here's what we said was the
situation, here's what we did and then, here's what's pending
or not necessary or whatever the categories might be. Is that
something you could prepare for the Committee?
Mr. Madden. We can, sir. Much of that was captured in the
archives and it is available online at
climatechange.alaska.gov.
Chairman Begich. OK.
Mr. Madden. So all of the meetings and all of the reports
are there.
Chairman Begich. All right.
Mr. Madden. I will provide a summary of those things that
are----
Chairman Begich. That would be great.
Mr. Madden [continuing.] Still being continued.
Chairman Begich. OK, that would be great. Thank you very
much, John. Let me say, again, to the panel, thank you very
much. I have some additional questions I will put for the
record. I know other Members of the Committee may also. Thank
you for being here. Thank you for helping. One of the things
that is clear, and again, with Alaska, and I think again, a
unique opportunity, if we do this right and think about
mitigation, and I always say this on almost anything we do,
that if we can do it here in Alaska, we can do it anywhere in
the country, because of our conditions, logistics, the cost,
the uniqueness of the State.
If we can figure out how to plan and coordinate in a much
stronger way when it comes to mitigating for future things that
we know--it may be erosion, water depths changing, sea level
changing, that the net result is we could probably do a lot
better planning and utilization of our Federal resources.
The purpose of this hearing today was, we start laying
these issues on the table, especially in rural Alaska, where
you can just map it and see what's going to happen. It is not a
question of if it is going to happen, is it 10 years? Is it 2
years? Is it 50 years? Being at Lonely Point, they were taking
out an old hazard site, as you know, Tom, they are moving as
quick as they can because literally, it is slowly being peeled
away and that area's going to be a big chunk of it is going to
be gone over time and we have some old military operations
there that have to be moved as quickly as possible, but these
are the kinds of things we have to think about when we know the
disaster is there and the question is; how do we coordinate our
Federal agencies?
How do we also look at the pieces to understand that
mitigation is now in a lot of ways, it is a much more cost
effective way to deal with disaster than waiting for something
to happen and pick the pieces up afterward. It just makes so
much sense. The problem is we have to think long-term and it is
hard in the world we live in today to think beyond what's
happening at the moment and part of this Committee's job, and
as Chair of this Committee, is to think about the future, as
well as dealing with the immediate response issues and I ca not
wait for the earthquake one. We had a little preempt here
earlier, but maybe next interference with recording long-range
planning on building codes, if also that was part of the long-
term thinking there. Thank you. This Committee stands adjourned
with how many days, 14 days for additional questions by other
committee Members. At this time, the Committee is adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]