[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
istal zone formation Center INFORMATION CENTER J NATIONAL' SHORELINE STUDY 44 t @i zu -0(k N "A I- t M W. nX, -J@,R TV-, &A, 6 N4, Z-6 _0 4- - t, - p lE '' wa '5M WRD a @W, Lm, MOZ,<4,_ 't@, c, _@Z g a R g :@Z w4n- I - -4 - "?"Q�1 "g @Z, v N. WM m 'R W@Zg a FA 4, A @,;Q6 WWI M I X 'Mb; p'ffl R X A. ai, INVENTORY OR` E P" 04 R T ALASKA REGION 35F U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS C NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION iLLL AUGUST 1971 GB -C7 F-1 458.7 1 by NAT 10 i@IA"'Ld-TiECH, N I CAL I " @-,, INFORMATION SERVICE U55 Sp,i@qt-td, Va. 22151. 1971 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ALASKA DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 7002 ANCHORAGE ALASKA X 99510 IN REPLY REFER TO NPAEN-PR-E 27 September 1971 SUBJECT: National Shoreline Study, Inventory Report, Alaska Region Defense Documentation Center Cameron Station Alexandria, Virginia 22314 The inclosed 12 copies of "National Shoreline Study, Inventory Report, Alaska Region," dated August 1971, are being furnished in accordance with C3,AR 70-31. This report presents an inventory of areas of serious erosion, ownership, and use of the ocean and estuary shore- lines of the State of Alaska, and is approved for public release; distribution unlimited. FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER: Incl (12) as WARREN GEORGE Chief, Engineering Division U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON ,SC 29405-2413 JUN 3 1987 Property of CSC Library The National Shoreline Study How will the shore be used ? SEE SHORE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES What is its condition ? SEE REGIONAL INVENTORY REPORTS What can be done ? to preserve or enhance the shore, by using- Engineering techniques SEE ACCESTON TAX SHORE PROTECTION GUIDELINES CFSTI WHITE SECTION REGIONAL INVENTORY REPORTS DBCIF BUFF SECTION DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY CODES Management techniques DIST. AVIAL SHORE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES In 1968, the 90th Congress authorized this National appraisal of shore erosion and shore protection needs. This National Shoreline Study and the existing Federal shore@ protection programs recognize beach and shore erosion as problems for all levels of government and all citizens. To satisfv the purposes of the authorizing legis- lation, P family of 12 related reports has been published. All are available to concerned individuals and organizations in and out of government. ---REGIONAL INVENTORY REPORTS (one for each.of the 9 major drainage areas) assess the nature and extent of erosion; develop conceptual plans for needed shore protection; develop general-order-of-magnitude esti- mates of cost for the selected shore protection; and identify shore owners. SHORE PROTECTION GUIDELINES describe typical erosion measures and present examples of,shore.pro- tection facilities, and present criteria for planning shore protection programs. @QF MANAGMENT CUIDELINES provide information to, @assist decision mak,irs to d@velop and implement shore management programs. ',.REPORT,ON THE NATIONAL SHORELIHE STUDY,.addressed to the Congress, summarizes the findings oft'the study and recommends priorities among serious@ roblem areas for action to stop erosion. NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY INVENTORY REPORT ALASKA REGION U.S. ARKY CORPS OF ENGINEERS North Pacific Division 210 Custom House Portland, Oregon 97209 Alaska District P.O. Box 7002 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 August 1971 NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Paragraph Page 1. Authority 1 2. Purpose 1 3. Scope 2 4. Coordination 2 5. Descriptive Terms of Shoreline Configuration 3 6. Explanation of Terms Used for Shore Classification 3 7. Federal Programs 5 DESCRIPTION OF COASTAL AREAS 8. Littoral Drift 7 9. Classification (Physical Characteristics) 7 10. Ownership 8 11. Development cf Coastal Area (Present) 8 12. Future Development 9 SHORE HTSTORY 13. Nature of Erosion 10 14. Extent of Erosion 11 15. Critical Erosion Areas 12 AUTHORIZED FEDERAL PROJECTS 16. Description and Status 13 AUTHORIZED FEDERAL SURVEY STUDIES 17. Description and Status IMPROVENENT METHODS 18. General Concepts 16 19. Suitable Type of Remedial Action 16 20. Estimated Cost 16 BOLAN K PA NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY ALASKA RECION INVENTORY REPORT INTRODUCTION 1. AUTHORITY This report was prepared under the authority of Section 106 of the 1968 Rivers and Harbors Act (Public Law 90-483) approved 13 August 1968 and quoted below: 10S EC. 106. (a) The Chief of Engineers, Departm ent of the Army, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army, .3hall make an appraisal investigationand study, including a review of any previous relevant studies and reports, of the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts of the United States, the coasts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and the shorelines of the Great Lakes, including estuaries and bays thereof, for the purpose of (1) determining areas along such coasts and shore- lines where significant erosion occurs; (2) identifying these areas where erosion presents a serious problem because the rate of erosion, considered in conjunction with economic, industrial,.recreational-, agricultural,. navigational, demographic, ecological, and other relevant factors, indicates that action to halt such erosion may @e justified; (3) describing generally the most suitable type of remedial action for those areas that have a serious erosion problem; (4) providing pre liminarv cost estimates for such remedial action; (5) recommending priorities among the serious problem areas for action to stop erosion; (6) providing State and local authorities with information and recom- men6ations to assist the creation and implementation of State and local coast and shoreline erosion programs; (7) developing recommended guidelines for land use regulation in coastal areas taking into con- sideration all relevant factors; and (8) identifying coastal areas where title uncertainty exists. The Secretary of the Army shall -in 3 submit to the Congress as soon as practicable, but not later th. years after the date of ei,actment of this Act, the results of such appraisal investigation and study, together with his recommendations. The views of concerned local, State, and Federal authorities and interests will be taken into account in making such appraisal in-ves- tivation and study." 2. PURPOSE The National Shoreline Study provides an overall comprehensive assess- ment of the beach and shore erosion probleirs confronting the Nation. The study is not intended to, and does not, develop specific projects for the protection of beaches and shores. It does; however, develop the information essential to assess the nature and extent of erosion problems and to formulate possible remedial action. 3. SCOPE The National Shoreline study is broken into three classes: Shore Erosion Inventories: Shore Protection Guidelines; and Shore Management Guidelines.. A separate report has been prepared for each of these classes. This report presents an inventory of the physical characteristics, his- torical changes, and ownership and use of the coastal shorelines of the states including major bays and estuaries. The historic changes studied relate to erosion produced by wave and tidal phenomenon. The reports on protection guidelines and management guidelines were prepared and published by the Coastal Engineering Research Center, Corps of Engineers, and the Office,.Chief of Engineers, respec'tively. The protection guide- lines report presents typical protective structures, general design criteria, typical cost estimates for various areas, and examples of shore protection projects. The management guidelines report includes reference material on multiple uses of the shore, principles of compre- hensive planning, zoning, insurance. and other nonstructural alterna- tives. A summary report submitted to Congress summarizes the regional inventories and estimates of cost for erosion control measures and recommends categories of priorities and broad national goals and objec- tives of long-range comprehensive planning for the shoreline. Because of its remoteness from the continental United States, the State of Alaska was designated as a separate region,-intitled the Alaska .Region. The Regional Inventory Report emphasis is on problem identi- fication, with the ocenn shoreline and estuary shoreline discussed under four general. categories, namelv: phvsical- characteristics; historical s"hore chan "zes; shore ownership; and shore use. The purpose of the study is idenLificatlon of those areas of sefious erosion, considered in con- Junction with economic, industrial, recreational, agricultural, naviga- tional., and other relevant factors. Because approximately 99% of Alaska's 47,300 miles of coastlinel is virgin land with thousands of miles still unexplored and with the time and monetary limitations imposed for the SLUCIV, I Complete documentation of erosion areas on Alaska's shoreline is impo,,slble. Therefore, this report discusses the entire coastline of Alaska in general. terms with@ detailed coastline information presented only for Lhe developed areas Areas of erosion w@-re determined primarily from rej-@@rLs received from State and local agencies, from requests by local ittterests for assistance iti alleviating erosion problems, from st-idles and surveill@noe programs conducted by.the Corps of Engineers, and frow study of aerial photographs. 4. COMD'INATION Letters were sent to all Federal, State, and local goveTnuients, groups, and iiid1viduals known to have interest in the shoreline, requesting All ceistline mileages use'd in this report. were obtained by map scaling thc- coastline to the head of tidewater. 2 ARCTIC OCEAN SKAGWAul ENL RGEMENT PT. BARROW SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA 5C, 0 150 SCALE IN MILES ALASKA UNEAU c.!@y of VO,9?. RIVER 04, FAIRSANKS@,@ $0. SITKA r 9 'CANADA 4- us"or ANCHORkSE SKAGWAY -JUNEAU F 41-AS'KA 6RIs,rOL PAY ETCHIKAN SITK ErCHIKAN >4 Clr,, ocrAN NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY ALASKA REG!ON 150 0 150 300 STATE OF ALASKA SCALE IN MILES U.S. ARMY CORPS Of ENGINEERS NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION AUGUST 19?1 PLATE I their assistance in quantifying the characteristics, historic changes, ownership, and use of the shoreline. Several press releases were made in attempts to involve the public. Information supplied through this coordination effort was incorporated into the inventory report. 5. DESCRIPTIVE TERMS OF SHORELINE CONFIGURATION a. Beach. The area of unconsolidated material between the low waterline and the extreme high waterline. b. Rocky Coast. A shoreline comprising rocky headlands with rela- tively no beaches. Photo No. I shows typical rocky coast in Alaska. c. Estuaries or Bays. A tidal inlet formed by the mouth of a river meeting the sea. 6. EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED FOR SHORE CLASSIFICATION a. Erosion Classification. (1) Erosion. The wearing away of land by the action of natural forces; for the purposes of this inventory report, the carrying away of beach and upland material by wave action, tidal currents, or littoral currents. An eroding conditions has more material leaving the system than is entering. Transitory changes of the Alaska shoreline occur frequently; sand beaches build up during the summer months but are stripped away during the winter. Long-term changes are often too slow to be reliably measured. Erosion, of the headlands is continuous and in some instances fairly rapid, as is the seaward growth of the beaches in some localities. Because of the lack of development along much of the Alaskan shoreline, erosion has not caused a significant economic impact and littlee attention has been given to the problem. Very few records of volumetric changes or rates of charts exist, and historical photos or charts by which comparison could be made are likewise lacking. (2) Critical Erosion. Erosion by wave action, tidal, or littoral currents presents a serious problem because the rate of erosion, con- sidered In conjunction with economic, indstrial, recreational, agri- cultural, navigational, demographic, ecological, and other relevant factors indicates that action to halt such erosion mav be justified. However, existing data on many of the factors are insufficient to quantify this decision. Major studies beyond the scope of the National Shoreline Study are required for definitive answers. Structural measures including seawalls, revetments, bulkheads, groin systems, and beach nourishment are usually considered for protecting the shoreline from erosion. However, structural measures taken to solve the problem in one area could transfer the problem elsewhere. Management, zoning, or acquisition of a public easement along the shoreline could be a logical means of preventing eco- nomic and other losses in some areas. These nonstructural alternatives should be investigated as part: of any in-depth study of erosion areas. 3 SEASIDE Offshore Losses Seaside Contribution 1. Water Surface Rise 1. Water Surface Drop 2. Sorting of Sand & Gravel 2. Artificial Beach Nourishment 3. Undarwater Canyons 4. Inlet Flushing C: Mining Alongshore Transport Alongshore Transport EROSION OR ACCRETION Alongshore Transport Alongshore Transport Landside Contribution Onshore Losses 1. Landmass Uplift 1... Landmass Subsidence 2. Artificial Beach Nourishment 2. -D,une Building 3. River Alluvium 3. Overtopping 4. Backshore Erosion 4. Inlet Lagoons 5. Escarpment Erosion 5. Mining 6. Dune Erosion LANDSIDE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SHORELINE CHANGES (3) Noncr,itical Erosion. Erosion by wave actioti, tidal, or littoral current,, does.not preS(!nL a serious problem because the rate of erosion in conjunction with ali relevant factors indicates that structural meas- ures mav not bc justified and/or that management to prevent or minimize adverse effects may be more-fipp)ropriate than action to halt erosion. (4) No Ercsion. Shoreline is stable or is accreting either naturally or through the efforts of man. In a stable condition the material enter- Ing the. system is equal to the material leaving the system. Any accreting condition has more material entering the system than is leaving. b. Shore Ownership. For the purposes of this inventory report, shore ownership considers the land adjacent to and landward of the 1970 high water line. Erosion is a landward movement of this line and these owner- ships are of prime importance in evaluating the relevant factors contrib- uting to critical. or noncritical erosion. Generally, the area between the low waterline and the high waterline is owned, controlled, or maraged by the states. In some areas, especially in bays and estuaries, these lands have been sold or leased by the states commercial or private purposes. (1) Federal. Land ourned by the Federal Government such as parks, wildlife refuge areas, military installations, and navigation facilities. (2) Public (@'on-_Federal). Land owned by State, county, and municipal governments and port districts. These lands include parks, navigation instill:itions, and waterway and fisherman access areas. (3) Private. Land owned by private Individuals and groups, for commercial, industrial, and resIdential purposes. (c) Shore Use. Shore use in this rcport considers the. land adjacent to and landward of the 1970 high waterline. Erosion is a landward move- ment of this land and use of these lands is important in evaluating the relevailL factors contribtiting to critical or noncritical erosion. (1) Recreational-Public- This Includes public usage of Federal, State. county, and municipal parks and boat Iaunclf ramps and moorage facilities,for the.recreational purposes. (2) Recreationa'-Private. This includes privately developed parks, resort, and moorage facilities used for recreational purposes. (3) Non-Recreational Development. This includes all use for pur- poses wher than recreation such as commercial, industrial, and residen- tial development--, and port and harbor facilities. (4) Underdoveioped.* This consists primarily of isolated shoreline and high bank beach front. making development difficult. 4 7. FEDERAL PROGRAMS The legislation establishing the existing Federal shore protecticn and beach YeSLoration programs declares it to be "the policy of the United States to assist in the construction, but not the maintenance, of works for the Improvement and protection against erosion by waves and currents of the shores of the United States, its territories, and possessions."' In its present form, the legislation spells out the conditions for, and the extent of, Federal participation. Basically, it relates Federal participation Cc public benefits and requires the active participation of sponsoring local interests. Under this concept, Federal participa- t-ion is gredLest where the shore areas are publicly owned and appropriate facilities to encourage full public use are provided. As much as 70 per- cent of the construction cost can be borne by the Federal Goverument ir. such cases. Where the shore area -o be protected is pr!.,iatelY owned.--a 'nd there Is no public use, no Federal funds can be provided. Between these extremes, Federal participati6a in providing protection is prcportional to public use and benefit. The remaining costs are borne by the sponsor- ing local.interests. By various Public Laws, the Congress has directed the Chief of Engineers to carry out the policies and programs established to protect and restore the Nation's shorelines. Under these legislative authorities, the Corps of Engineers conducts research into the causes 6f beach erosion, investi- gates and studies specific beach erosion problems, and constructs shore- line protection and beach restoration projects. Shore protection and beach rectoration programs include projects specifl- cally and individually authorined by Congress, and projects for which individual authorization by Congress is not required. The lacter program is limited to projects for which the Federal share of the construction cost will not exceed $1,000,000. These programs will be referred to as ,the regular project program and the small project program. Shore protection and beach restoration projects are initiated by requests from local interests. Publicly owned shores subject to erosion are eligible for Federal assistance; privately owned shores may be eligible for Federal.ass1stance if there is pubjAc benefit such as that arising from public use. Parties desiring information, advice, and assistance in combating beach erosion should act through and in cooperation with the State, c-,:ntv, or city agenev concerned with beach and shore use and management. Consultation with the appropriate District or DIvisior, .Engineer should then be held to explore the eligibility and applicability of Federal programs. The regular program for beach erosion studies is authorized by Congress either by A resolution approved by the Public Works Committee of the Senate or the House of Representatives or in a River and Harbor Act enacted by-t'.-e Congress. If th%,@ small-project pro- gram is applicable, the Chief of Engineers can authorize the study. 5 Investigations and studies are made to determine whether a project is justified and, if so, wi.o@ther its construction is feasibie. One of the early concerns of the Fngineer Officer directing the study is to ascer- tain the desires and opinions of all parties affected by, or having an interest in, the protection, improvement, and use of the shore area con- cerned. To this end, he holds public meetings and workshops during the course of the study. The stud.v thorougnly examines the problem and al- ternative solutions along with the pros and cons. After careful analysis of the impacts of all applicable remedial measures on the erosion problem, other shore areas, the regimen of the coastal waters, shore processes, marine life, ecological values, and shore uses. a general plan for shore protection and beach iestoration Is devised. If comparisons of the costs of construction and the benefits resulting from the construction show the project to be a sound and prudent public investment, and if the local sponsoring agency affirms willingness and ability to provide the required cooperation, the report on the study recommends adoption of the project. Reports are reviewed by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and the Chier of Engineers, and circulated for comments of the Governors of affected States, State and local agencies, and all interested Federal. agencies. As soon as a project is authorized and funded under either the regular or the small-project programs, the responsible District Engineer carries out the detailed engineering work essential to construction and prepares construc-tion drawings and specifications. Contractors submit bids based on drawings and spec-Ificitions and a construction contract is L - awarded to the successful bidder. The District Engineer ccint,*nues to consul. rand coordinate with the local sponsoring agency while engineering and construction are underway. Upon completion, the protectiv4@ works are turned over to the sponsoring local interests for operation and mainten.- ance IT) accordance with the existing legislation. Further information on assistance by the Corps of Fngineers in shore pro- tertion Is contained In a publication, "Shore Protectio!i Program," by the 'catlon can be Office, (.'hlef*of Fngineers, July 1970. Copies of this rubl. obtain,ed from Division or District Engineerq. 6 DESCRIPTION OF COASTAL AJ,US 8. LITTORAL DRIFT The Alaska current flows north and west around the Gulf of Alaska, west-- ward along the Aleutian Islands and thence northward through the islands into Bristol Bay and along the western Alaska coast., In winter, these currents mainly turn southward around the Bering Sea, making only weak incurslons into the Chukchi Sea. But in summer a strong current flows northward through Bering Strait and around northwestern Alaska.t.o.Point Barrow, where it meets a weak current flowing westward along the north coast. 9. CLASSIFICATION (PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS) The complex coast of Alaska covers a broad geographical range in latitude and longitude and includes every type of coastal system found in the lower 49 states with the exception of.the tropical area. The general coastline of Alaska is 6,640 miles long, or 54% of the total 12,383 miles of general coastline of the United States. The tidal shoreline, which includes islands, Inlets, and all shoreline to the head of tidewater, is much longer and reflects the intricacy of coastal Alaska. This distance is estimated to be 47,300 miles. This tidal shoreline in Alaska is the greatest-in the southeast region (63%) where the coast is a labyrinth of fiords,,islands, and bays, and is minimal in the arctic. Northern Alaska land/water inter- faces are predominantly earth banks behind narrow pebble beaches all along the Arctic Ocean. They range from two to three feet above sea level east of Barrow to 30 or more feet west of Wainwright. Barrier beaches occur in.several localities, but they are low, without vegitation, and covered with ice during the winter. Beaches are all pebbly, and in some areas (Wainwright) soft coal is common, washed ashore from underwater seams. This land area remains frozen year-round except for the top few inches. .In the Chukchi Sea and the northern Bering Sea areas, the seacoasts are still largely low gravel banks, with such areas as Point Hope extending far out into the sea. Beaches are pebbly with little or no vegetation on them. Banks behind are low, gravelly, and slope upward to t1ie steep hills rather graduallv, often for miles. The huge Yukon-Kuskokwim delta area Is a vn@@t marshy low tundra which has an indefinite coastal boundary changing with river meander movement and tide cycles. The Aleutians are solid rock, steep-sided islands with a characteristic wet-tundra vegeta-. tion found n-)wfiere else in Alaska. The coast of the Gulf of Alaska and Kodiak Island is predominantly rocky and steep with thin soils. The Topog- raphy of [email protected] was established by the Pacific Mountain sys- tem, greatly modified by the erosive action of glaciers. These coastal edges are typically rugged with flatland occurring only in short reaches at river mouths and valleys left by retreating glaciers. Of.the 47,300 miles of tide-wetted coastline, 20,250. miles are classified as Ocean shoreline exposure with the remaining 27,050 miles being bay or estuarv shoreline exposure. 7 10. 1: Rs It I p Of the ippro.,imate 375 million acre land area of Alaska, 85 million acres have bt-tan withdrawn for specific purposes by the Federal Government, twelve ,@million acres are in the process of selection by the State of Alaska, six million acres are privately owned lands, leaving 272 million acres classi- fied as public domain land administered by the Federal Government. Of the 20,250 miles of ocean shoreline, 2,500 miles are classified public (State t)r c1ty owned), 100 miles are privately owned, with the remaining 17,650 miles being Federal lands. Correspondingly, of the 27,050 miles of estu;try shoreline, 3,000 mtles are public, 350 miles are patented privzto wich (tie remaining 23,700 miles being Federal lands. As can be Seen from plate 3, the major portions of the State selected shorelines (public) are on the north slope of the Brooks Range, the north shore of the Alaska Peninsula, and the shoreline oC the Gulf of Alaska. The State 'has also selected.land areas adjacent to the major coastal cl:ties; how- ever, the shoreline involved totals less than.100 miles (see table 1). The privately owned shoreline exists in or near the 114 cities and vil- lages located along the coast. This privately owned shoreline varies from zero for villages that are unincorporated and located on public domain land to 20 miles along the major cities in southeastern Alaska. Tahle I gives an estimate of private land for the shoreline settlements. The onIv extended length of privately owned coastline is along the east shore of Cook Inlet as shown on the insert. of plate 3. At the present time, Lhe native segment of the Alaska population is contesting the ownership of lands in the State of Alaska. Should this native land claim be settled as presently envisioned, approximately 300 additional miles of ocean shoreline and 1,500 miles of estuary shoreline could be deeded to the natives. 11. DFIVELOPMENT OF COASTAL AREA (PRESENT) Of Alaska's present population of 300,000, approximately 164,000 residents are located in the five major coastal cities of Anchoragc, Ketchikan, Juneau, Kodiak, and Kenai, with 54,000 people distributed through the remaining 109 coastal cities and v@llages (see table 1). Except for small communities situated Intermittt-ritly along the entire length, the coastline is generally devoid of habitation or capital improvement. As diSCUSSed before, mariv of the villages of Alaska are located on federally owned Lind. Coastal develorment consists mainly of private homes with comriervial. developme!it. existing in only the major cities and villages. The onl 'v shoreline development which Is not c4ty and village areas is the Cook Inlet area, along which homesteading nas evolved. Plate 3 in- sert shows this private ownership. Of the total ocean coastline, only 1.80 miles are developed with the remaining being virgin coastline. Of the total, estuary coastline, all Is undeveloped except approxiinately 150 miles. (niese figures do not include homestead shorelines of the Cook Inle!- areas.) There are an estimated five miles of public shoreline 4% c 2m ----------- Wms Ace kzm:z - -------- vhKuTAT 0 -5 NTRA 4z117 - - - --------- (AL-L-fto GILLAM Q go NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY ALASKA REGION ALASKA U.S. ARL:V CORPS OF ENGINEERS NORTH PACIFIC OIVI3fON AUGUSI 1971 PLATE 2 classified recreational which are developed as city parks in a few major cities. 'Thereare no private recreational developed areas; thus, all other developed shoreline is classified nonrecreational developmer.t. 12. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT As Alaska continues to 'increase in population, many of its major cities located on glacial outwashes next to steep mountains will be compelled to expand along the coastline. With the oil, mining, and forestry industries developing in Alaska, new coastal cities may spring up in conjunction with port facility development. 9 SHORE HISTORY 13. NATURE OF EROSION It is readily @,nown that varying combinations of wind-generated waves and currents acting against an unprotected shore will result in the move- ment of beach material,s. In Alaska, these forces are augmented by addi- tional conditions such as extreme tidal variations (over 40 feet at Anchorage), ice (Barrow), tidal influence on river bank erosion (Kenai, Dillingham, and Bethel), and tectonic deformation. For example. the @extreme tidal ranges permit wave attack on constant varying levels of a beach. Resultantly, an erosion scarp may rur. up and down a bluff in acccrdance with the ti-dal cycle. Such action more readily induces failure of the bluff foundation. Wind-blown icebergs in the Barrow area have inflicted consideraDle damag@ to the beaches and homes oE the Barrow community. Tidal inundation of the vast flood plain of the Kuskokwim River, as far upriver as Bethel (70 miles), results in the provision of an intermittent bodv of water over which waves are generated. Wave impingement an the river bank fronting the community has resulteri In serious bank recession and loss of improvements such as bill-1-dings and streets. Subsequent ebb of the tide permits the eroded bank material to be washed downstream by the flow of the river. Another condition which relates directly to the extent of beach erosion in Alaska is seis- mic deformatien. Tectonic subsidence, as experienced in the Cook Inlet- Prince William Sound-Kodiak areas (see plate 4) following the March 1964 earthquake, resulted in previously unaffected shorelines being subjected to erosion processes. Ancborage, Kenai, Ninilchik, Homer, Kcdiak, Old Harbor, Larsen Bay, and Karluk are communities now experiencing erosion of contiguous beaches because of tectonic subsidence varying from one to six feet. The same processes of erosion, transportation, and deposition which are found In tenperate regions also occur in the arctic. Most littoral sediment is carried by longshore currents and by wave swash. -Wave swash probably is the more important force because beach sediments are generally too large to be carried in suspension. However, finer sediments in suspension are carried on past spits into deep water. Ice push is not a major transport agent as it is estimated to account for only one to two percent of the total material moved. Arctic fresh water streams are small and are not an ample source of waterborne 6ediment for supply to ocean current3. No glaciers reach the coast as material sup- pliers in northwestern Alaska. Erosion of sea cliffs Is also insuffici -ent for littoral replenishment. Therefore, net transport results in deple- tioti of shorelines to build lip land forms into deeper water. Cortipensat- ing for this is the effect of climate, which slows erosion, protects the coastline, and reduces long--hare transport. However, one open water storm may Move MOLe sediment in a few hours than would be normally trans- ported in 20 vears. Prevailing littbral movement is northerly in north- western Alaska and beach materials are fine. Pleistocene beach and former beach formations in the area consist of surficial coverings of unconsolidated silt, sand, and gravel deposits covering an area greater 10 than 26,000 square miles. This material is readily eroded and transported. Winds from easterIv or westerIv directions develop waves which approach beaches from the west and north which, when refracted, develop longshore currents primarily in the southeast and northeast directions. Fall storm winds from the west, developing northeasterly currents, build up points and splLs to the northeast. Stormwaves and ice erode beaches with result- ing sediments transported by wave swash and currents to the northeast, to build up long barrier beach bars and the westerly sides of points. There- fore, prominent shore configurations in northwestern Alaska are barrier beaches, spits, and points building up on the seaward side and slrwly being extended northerly. 14. EXTENT OF EROSION There are over 47,000 miles of coastline in Alaska which are subjected to the forces of tidal waters. The extent and degree of erosive action is a direct function of th.:@ geologic composition of theshoreline material- and of the sequence and magnitude of physical forces such as wind, tem- perature, tidal current, and tidal stages. Of the 47,000 miles of coast- line wetted by tidal waters, preliminary estimates indicate that at least 5,000 miles are exposed to significant beach erosion processes. Geologic appraisal of Alaska's coastline indicates that susceptibility to beach erosion increases with geographic latitude. Erosion along the rocky coast- line of southeast Alaska has been relatively insignificant. This is also apparent along the reach of the coastline extending from Cross Sound (northern extremity of southeast Alaska) to the easterly side of the, Kenai Peninsula in southcentral Alaska. For the moct part, mountains and gla- ciers dip to meet the sea along this reach. Erosion of certain reaches of beach In the Cook Inlet 'area is significant due to the exposure of. the high sand bluffs, sand s-.,;its,,and similar shoreline materials to the direct wave and tidal attack. Specific problem areas such as Turnagain (Anchorage), Kenai, Ninilchik, and Homer are sited as examples. Proceeding alcng the perimeter of Alaska from Cook Inlet, problems of beach erosion beccme less apparent, except for isolated cases, along the southerly limits of the Alaskan ?eninsula and Aleutian Chain complex: rocky shore- lines predominate in this area. Along the northerly side of the peninsula and north along the entire northwesterly coast of Alaska to Barrow, more exzensive erosion processes become evident. This lengthy po--tion of Alaska's coastline Is conspicuous in its absence of coastline mountains and in the predominance of low flatlands composed of sands, silts, gravels, peat, muskeg, and petmafrost. It is along this rearii that themajor r1ver svstems of Alaska (Yukon, Kuskoi.wim, Kobuk, aad Noatah) meander to tidal waters. 'Recession of shoreline and res@tlcant shoaling of pri- marily navigable coastal waters is evideni: throug,(,.out 1:his --each. , Spe- cific problems are presently confronting the communities of Clarks Point, Dillingham, Bethel, Unalakleet, Nome, Shishmaref, Kotzebue, Point Hope, and Barrow. Normally, extensive erosion of the beaches north of Unala- kleet would not be considered possible since the average open water season is only about three to four months each year.. During the remainder M" Photo I TYPICAL ROCKY COAST OF SOUTHEASTERN ALNSKA AND THE ALEUTIAN CHAIN 0.0 0, Photo 2 TYPICAL BEACH BERM EROSION ALONG WATERFRON'T IN NORTH ALASKA N K G E of the year, the arctic ice field covers the Norton Sound (Bering Sea)- Chukchi Sea area. Uniquely; however, sudden violent storms originating in the Bering and Chukchi Seas during the limited open water season result in direct wave impingement on the erosion-susceptible coastlines of sand and tundra. 15. CRITICAL EROSION AREAS For eons In time beach erosion and accretion have taken place on the shore- line of Alaska. This beach movement is part of the natural cycle of tile coastline. The present day-by-day beach erosion processes go unnoticed over tile many miles of virgin coastline of Alaska and are only.documented at the scattered coastline communities. The beach erosion classified critical In Alaska is the erosion of the shoreline along the waterfront of approximately 40 Alaska coastline communities. The native villages of Alaska, In addition to socio-ecOnomic problems, share the common problem of beach erosion. Because of former subsistence need.-;, native communi- ties were sea oriented; each was built close to '-he beach oil low-lying gravel. shores; each was at the tip of a land-form spit or point where migrating marine mammals passed close to shore; and each was sited where native craft could be readily launched for the hunt. Such villages existed for thousands of years, shifting with the landform until becoming fixed by advancing clvilizatior. Although subsistence is no longer as important as in formet years, tliese water-oriented people cling to their ancient habitation sites, and white settlers have adopted the siting to implement the pattern. Because of advancing civilization, economic pressures, and construction of schools, coasLal peoples are now deeply rooted to one habitation. Primitive villages could more easily be relocated or moved back from encroaching seas. In present times, real estate is acquired, personal possessions are many, and housing is permanent. Consequently, erosion is destroving homes and streets, public facilities, and is con- currently destroying large numbers of historic habitations. Native people are deeply disturbed by the erosive removal of their ancestral habitation sites, and although Christianized, feel a strong tribal attraction to tile sites as well as hidden undercurrents of their former shaministic religion and primitive superstitions. In addition, loss of beach berms allows storm surge to flood inland areas of villages. Waves sweep Ice cakes inland to crush buildings and personal property. Salt water pollutes potable supplies with salt and sewage. As discussed in the. previous section, most of these communities are endangered by natural erosion processes; however, some erosion areas are man-induced by the removal, of the beach gravel. The developed property In the majority of cities and village s attacked by erosion is personal homes. These homes vary from substandard in the native villages to $100,000 homes in the major cities. Even though home value varies, erosion encroachment on any structure is considered critical by the homeowner. Table I lists villages and cities of reported erosion problems. This in- formation was developed by questionnaire forms sent to communities. Map series 5 shows tile location of these areas. Of the 330 miles of coastline classified as developed, critical erosion is estimated at 15 miles for ocean shore areas and 80 miles for estuary shoreline. 12 AUTHORIZED FEDERAL PROJECTS 16. DESCRIPTION AND STATUS No Fedei:ai Beach erosion control projects have been authorized for the State of Alaska. Federal navigation projects have been authorized for .che following localities in the St3te: Project Name Status Apoon Mouth of the Yukon Navigation Channel Complete Cordova Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Craig Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Dillingham harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Douglas Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Dry Pass Navigation Channel Complete Egegik River Navigation Channel Complete Elfin Cove Navigation Channel @Complete Gastineau Channel Navigation Channel Complete Homer Mirbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Iliuliuk (Unalaska Harbor) Navigatiorf Channel Complete Juneau liarbor. Small Boat Harbor Complete Ketchikan flarbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Kodiak '.-iarbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Metlakntla Harlor Small Boat Harbor Complete Naknek River Navigation Channel Complete Neva & 01ga Straits Navigation Channel Complete Ninilclilk 1@arbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Nome Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Pelican Harbor Small. Boat Harbor Complete 13 Proiect Name (cont) St@acus Petersberg Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Port Alexander Navigaticn Channel Complete Rocky Pass Navigation Channel Complete St. Michael Canal Navigation Chanael Complete Rocky Pass in Keka Strait Navigation Channel Complete Old Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Anchorage Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Seldovia Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Seward Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Sitka Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Skagway Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Stikine River Navigation Channel complete Valdez Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Wrangell Harbor Small Boat Harbor Complete Wrangell Narrows Navigation.Channel Complete Kake Harbor Small Boat Harbor Authorized King Cove.Harbor Small Boat Harbor Authorized Sergius-Whitestone Narrows Navigation Channel Authorized 14 AUTHORIZED FEDERAL SURVEY STUDIES 17. DESCRIPTION AND STATUS Formal study of the shoreline erosion ptob lems in the State of Alaska is being.conducted at the following locations: Area Typc Study Status Dillingham Survey Report Active Bethel Survey Report Complete (Negative) Point Hope Survey Report Active Unalakleet Survey Report Active Port Lions Recor, Report Active Barrow Recon Report Complete (Negative) 15 IMPROVEMENT METHODS .18. GENERAL CONCEPTS As both land erosion and aggradation are simultaneously taking place alo-Lg the.virgin coastline areas of Alaska, there need be little concerti for this natural process. However, the encroachment of shoreline erosion in areas of developed cities and villages does cause alarm. In many areas of critical erosion adjacent to villages, the most economic measure of protection would be village relocation away from the seashore where the community would be safe from erosion or flooding. Because outlying com- munities are water oriented for subsistence, source of income, transporta- tion, communication, and supply, people are not willing to move. They object quite strongly to all referenLeS to relocation, choosing to remain in their present area. Governmental agencies have been rebuffed in com- bined attempts io induce relocation, and are reluctant to recommend this approach. Therefore, the general concept of stabilization of the shores in their present positions, i.e., preventing further recession of those shores, should be considered. 19. SUITABLE TYPE OF REMEDIAL ACTION As previ.ously,eiscussed, erosion exists from a wide variety of causes., varying from wind-driven waves and extreme tide ranges to ice flow. As can be seen, to protect the beach and bluff area in locations of high tide fluctuation and areas with severe ice induced erosion, an erosion control structure becomes very expensive. In contrast to this type of construction, there are areas where erosion cculd be stopped by improve- ment through the use of cil drum.type revetment. 20. ESTIMATED COST Cost of structural beach protection measures would depend to a great extent on the locality and the nature of the problem. Estimated cost of protection ranges from $35/LF for barrel-type erosion protection to $200/LF for rock riprap protection. Total cost of shoreline protect ion of areas having serious erosion is estimated to be 75 million dollars. 16 TABLE 1 ESTUARY SETTLEMENTS City or Village Population Ownership Erosion Miles Private Public Reported/Miles. Kotzebue 1,700 2-3/4 1/4 Yes*/3.0 Selawik 348 0 0 Deering 95 0 0 No* Brevig Missicn 77 3/4 1/4 No* Teller 217 0 0 No* Seward Peninsula White Mountain 151 0 0 No** Golovin 160 0 0 No* Elim 160 0 0 No*, Koyuk 129 3/4 1/4 NO* Shaktoolik 187 3/4 1/4 Yes*/1.0 Unalakleet 574 0 1/2 Yes*il.2 St. Michael 205 0 0 Maybe*/1.0 Chanilitit 2.5 0 0 Yukon Emmonak a 3/4 1/4 Bethel 1 1/2 Yes/1.5 Scammon Bay 115 0 0 No* Hooper Bay 460 3/4 1/4 Maybe*/1.0 Cheva k 315 0 0 No* Bristol Bay Newtok 150 0 0 Toksook Bay 160 0 0 Contacted by letter Contacted by questionnaire Located in a large.State-selected (public) area 17 TABLE I (Cont) ESTUARY SETTLEMENTS City or Village Population Ownership Erosion Miles Private Public ReporLed/Miles Kipnak 221 0 0 Kongiganak 344 0 0 Tuntululiak 144 0 0 Yes**/0.5 Quinhagak 228 0 0. No* Goodnews Bay 150 0 0 Bristol Bay Togiak 220 0 0 Dillingham*** 0 424 1 / 4 Yes/1.5 Clarks Point 0 138 0 0 Yes*/0.5 Ekuk 40 0 0 Naknek 249 3/4 1/4 No* South Naknek 150 3/4 1/4 Egegik*** 150 0 0 Pilot Point 76 0 0 No* Ivanof Bay 15 0 0 No* Akhiok 25 0 0 Southcentral Uyak 10 0 0 Larsen Bay 72 3/4 1/4 Yes*/1.0 Point Lions 190 0 0 Yes/0.5 Seldovia 460 0 0 Yes/0.5 Contacted by letter Contacted by questionnaire Located in a large State-selected (public) area 18 TABLE 1. (Cont) ESTUARY SETTLEMENTS City or Village Population Ownership Erosion Miles Private Public Reported/Miles Homer 1,247 20 10 Yes/20.0 Anchor Point 171 1 0 Yes/1.0 Ninilchik 169 2 0 Yes/2.0 Kenai 18,000 10 10 Yes/20.0 Salamatof 25. 1/2 0 Yes/0.5 Anchorage 113,000 10 10 Yes/20.0 Eklutna*** 50 0 0 Southcentral Tyonek*** 187 0 0 Yes/1.0 Valdez*** 1,000 5 3 TatitIck 96 0 0 Cordova*** 1,300 5 1/2 Whittier 900 2 2 Seward*** 2,123 2 2 Yakutat*** 250 3/4 1/4 Southeastern Skagway*** 759 5 2 Haines*** 400 5 2 Hoonah 900 3/4 1/4 Pelican City 135 0 1/4 Tanakee Springs 109 0 0 Klawock 251 3/4 1/4 Contacted by letter ContaCted by questionnaire Located in a large State-selected (public) area 19 TABLE I (Cont) ESTUARY SETTLFMENTS City or Village Population Ownership Erosion Miles Private Public Reported/Miles Kasaan 36 0 0 S.E. Hydaburg 251 1 1/4 No* 01 74 0 0 Port Heiden Bristol Bay (Cont) Nelson Lagoon 0 25 0 0 OCEANSHORE SETTLEMENTS City or Village Population Ownership Erosion Miles Private Public Reported/Miles Kaktovik 120 3/4 1/4 No* Nooiksut 25 0 0 Arctic Slope Barrow 1,314 1-3/4 1/4 Yes, serious*/2.0 Wainwright*** 253 0 0 Yes*/1.0 Point Lay*** 20 0 0 Point Hope 324 0 0 Yes**/2.0 Seward Peninsula Kilaliwa 142 0 0 Ras seawall* Nome 3,000 1-3/4 1/4 Yes, has seawall/0.5 Stebbins 158 0 0 No* Contacted by letter Contacted by questionnaire Located in a large State-selected (public) area 20 TABLE I (Cont) OCEANSHORF SETTLEMENTS City or Village Population Ownership Erosion Miles Private Public Reported/Miles Shishmaref 217 0 0 Yes*/1.0 Seward Peninsula Inalik 120 0 0 Wales 128 0 0 No** Gambell 358 0 Maybe*/1.0 Savoonga 187 0 0 Yes*/1.0 Northeast Cape 20 0 0 No* Alakanuk 278 3/4 1/4 Yes, serious*/I.O Yukon Sheldons Point 110 0 0 Tanunak 183 0 0 Mekoryuk 242 0 0 Yes, serious*/2.0 Kuigllingok 344 0 0 Platinum 44 0 0 No* Bristol Bay Ungg 43 0 0 Sand Point 254 0 0 Belkofskv 57 0 0 King Cove 300 3/4 1/4 False Pass 41 0 0 Pavloff Harbor 77 0 0 Akutan 100 0 Contacted by letter Contacted by questionnaire Located in a large State-selected (public) area 21 TABLE I (Cont) OCEANSHORE SETTLEMENTS City or Village Population Ownership Erosion Miles Private Public Reported/Miles Unalaska 400 3/4 1/4 Nikolski 92 0 No* Bristol Bay Atka 115 0 0 No* Biorka 20 0 0 St. George 264 0 0 St. Paul 378 3/4 1/4 Perryville Ill 0 0 Chignik 99 0 0 Maybe*/1.0 Southcentral Old Harbur*** 193 3/4 1/4 Yes/1.0 Karluk 130 0 0 Yes*/1.O Kodiak*** 8,780 10 10 Ouzinkie*** 214 1/4 No English Lay*** 78 0 0 Juneau*** 13,225 20 10 Douglas*** 1,152 5 5 Southeastern Angoon 395 1 1 Sitka*** 3,237 5 5 Kake 455 1 1 Contacted by letter Contacted by questionnaire Located in a large State-selected (public) area 22 TABLE I (Cont) MENTS OCFANSHORE SETTLE City or Village Population Ownership Erosion Miles Private Public Reported/Miles Petersburg*** 2,000 10 10 Wrangell*** 1,800 2 1 Craig*** 300 1 1 Southeastern Ketchikn*** 11,100 10 10 Saxman*** 153 1 1 No* Metlakatla 1,000 5 2 No* Contactedby letter Contacted by questionnaire Located in a large State-selected (public) area 23 TABLE 2 UNITS MILES I. TOTAL SHOREL114E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 47,300 11. OCEAN/GULF/LAKE SHORELINE EXPOSURE - - - - - --- - - - 20,250 A. *PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Length of shore that normally .has a beach zone - Unknown 2. Length of shore without a beach zone - - - - - - Unknown B. HISTORICAL SHORE CHANGES (movement of MHW line or comparable datum line) 1. Critical shore erosion - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 2. Noncritical shorE erosion - - - - - - - - - - - 2,000 (est) *3. Noneroding (stable or accreting) - - - - - - - - --- C. SHORE OWNERSHIP 1. Federal - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 17,650 2. Public (non-Federal) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,500 3. Private - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100 4. Uncertain - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 D. SHORE USE (1970) 1. Recreational - Public - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 2. Recreational - Private - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 3. Nonrecreational Development - - - - - - - - - - 180 4. Undeveloped -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20,068 111. BAY*/ESTUARY SHORELINE EXPOSURE - - - - - - - - - - - 27,050 A. *PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Length of shore that normally has a beach zone - Unknown 2. Length of shore without a beach zone - - - - - - Unknown E. HISTORICAL S HORE CHANGES (movement of MHW line or comparable datum line) 1. Critical shore erosion - - - - - - - - - - - - - 80 .2. Noncritical shore erosion - - - - - - - - - - - 3,000 (est) 3. Noneroding (stable or accreting) - - - - - - - -- --- C. SHORE OWNERSHIP 1. Federal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23,700 2. Public (non-Federal) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,000 3. Private - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 350 4. Uncertain - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 D. SHORE USE (1970) 1. Recreational - Public - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 2. Recreational - Private - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 3. Nonrecreational Development - - - - - - - - - - 150 4. Undeveloped - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26,897 With a large percentage of the Alaska coastline still unexplored, physical characteristecs aie not definable. 24 ARCrIC OCEAN PT. BARROW ANCHORAGE ALASKA KENAI WoAw NOA?rolv IR NK N A A HHOME evsgog ALASKA OF ANCHOFAGE ul-F SKAGWAY INSERT JUNEAU GULF OF A4AS 19RISrOL BAY SITK ETCHIKAN SEE INSERT ALASKA 150 0 150 300 L E G E N D SCALE IN MILES XXXX PUBLIC OWNERSHIP PRIVATE OWNERSHIP .NOTES: 1. THERE. IS STATE SE- 2. ALL UNLABELED COAST LECTED AND PRIVATE LINE IS PUBLIC DOMPAN LANDS IN AND ADJACENT LAND CLASSIFIED "FED- NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY TO A MAJORITY OF THE ERAL"! ALASKA REGION COASTAL CITIES AND VILLAGES AS TABULATED SHORE OWNERSHIP IN TABLE I U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NORTH PACIFIC OIVISION AUGUST ISM PI ATF A 1A X @At.i( 110BA61. c I' v I CEWf 1.10 Z 7- S CAN !@L AND 'k E X I- L 1, Ii iA 101: I i - L f Artz, of -I-)if' A r,! a of @,,to ;I!, S A IN I I N ;4q -P I., e h. cl A. x 10@1 2`@O K I OMF TI o 5' A !A.. I i- F- - j I -i 10() 50 0 00 NOTE: SET-TING OF THE OBSERVED AND INFERRED VERTICAL NATIrjNAL SHORELINE STUDY DISPLACEMENTS OF THE KODIAK GROUP OF ISLANDS ALASKA REGION WITH RESPECT TO REGIONAL TECTONIC DEFORMATION TECTONIC DEFORMATION IN SOUTH-CENTRAL ALASKA. U.S. ARMY CORPS.OF ENGINEER3 NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION AUGUST 19?1 PLATE 4 k 0 CA a) cn 0 Cn > 0 a 0 :Q - V A Ol XK Vp U) m rn --q (A --i -Tl -n --i 'n m m 0,:r > M 0 -r . . Cj 0 rn C: m -0 0 r- M X LAM --i U) z r- r7l a: > -4 0 n r- > :E - z z - rn rn ;u M - -i Ln > C m x Z - z CA :1 z 0 0 M 0 m > 0 M z --i > r z 0 M (A z Z -V r . 0 -4 r r X .4 (A r 0 > > m M r- r- n )o M.M 0 0 > > r- 0 > 0 z > (n z C Ga < 0 A 0 Q r- m 0 @u r M - > Ln rtl m z m m LP > z 0 iK :E M r, 0 > 0 e 2 U) m z rrl 0 rn Ln @o -Tl E! z 0 m m > Zn c BARROW d, Fla--zm Lla- -139ff 1 80 MILES NOTE: THE CITIES LISTED HAVE WATER FRONT EROSION PROBLEMS. NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY ALASKA REGION EROSION AREAS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF EN0NEER3 NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION AUGUST 1971_ PLATE 5 A BARROW WAINWRIGHT C 14 5 PT HOPE KOTZEBUE SHISHMAREF C3 GAMBELL SHAKTOOLIK 0 SAVOONGA UNALAKLEET ST. -MICHAEL A ALAKANUK got go' NATIONAL SHORiLINE STUDY ALASKA REGION I"u. 80 MILES EROSION AREAS NOTE THE 'CITIES LISTED HAVE WATER U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NORTH PACIFIC DIVISJOW FRONT EROSION PROBLEMS.. AUGUST 1971 PLATE 58 Ft HOOPER BAY BETHEL f) LULIA MEKORYUK DILLINGHAM oil @*IGNIK 00! Wd ME Inc 1"- 80 MILIES NOTE: THE CITIES LISTED NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY HAVE WATER FRONT ALASKA REGION EROSION PROBLEMS. EROSION AREAS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION AUGUST t971 PLATE 5C NCH RAG LAMATO, INIL HIK ANCHOR PT HOME SELDOVIA PORT LARSEN LIONS B BA A KARLUK OLD HARBOR Isd ::3 L E G E N D 1 80 MILES ACTIVE EROSION AREAS NOTE: THE CITJES LISTED NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY HAVE WATER FRONT ALASKA REGION EROSION PROBLEMS. EROSION AREAS U.S. APMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WORTH PACIFIC DIVISION AUGUST 1971 PLATE 50 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER 7w gggg,! &r. I MR TM, p @ IMIMIC, 31W'. REY; law RE VE, g 2g , N,-, W4117 0 OR,-! -0 MR "A I em W 'M "fis, r%f, -t, PRA.-I 12. R IN* MR., ,Ng M Uig.ty T-@y w - 0,151, PT .1, AMR gwkg- Ma Oil R fir 1@14 ME. VW ypi !E-Ill fill ERIN Rill, a -pi ASM IA "I ffiv Al N AO@ 05 3 jrj m5g ,g,v, V1,121, MR P-@,;,g -40 P 2W T 42 Rf"g, 12 a Mil - SIR, @ -l Nw, -!my rIfOl Mv gg A M", "M g R d �r VIle INV A. ASP)' .4 WN i",I@ w- qM Elf COASTAL ZONE N UNTER