Kivalina; This study estimated the 100-year storm surge level to be 7.7 feet above MLLW.

•“The irregular character of the berm in 1966 suggests it has undergone, and is possibly still undergoing, thermal erosion of frozen soil.” Subsequent aerial photographs show that the beach has accreted and that the berm has become vegetated.
•The 2007 aerial photographs showed that portions of the vegetated berm along the southern one-third of town had receded several feet. They also showed erosion has taken place along the southern one-third of town on the lagoon side, probably resulting from flow from the Wulik and Kivalina rivers.
•The Signauk Entrance to the lagoon migrates back and forth over time, and it closes periodically.
•In 1997, the inlet was located considerably south of where it was in 2007. In 1997, the spit near the entrance extended about 1,200 feet, but by 2000 half of it had eroded, and it completely disappeared by 2007. The beach at the southern end of the island accreted by 200–300 feet by 2007.
The author recommended that the effects to natural accretion and erosion of any proposed development or mitigation measures be fully explored.

Many people recommended erosion protection efforts for the community, including construction of a seawall or strategic efforts to protect the fuel tanks and the school. Seventeen people said they would prefer to remain in the community, but some of them believed remaining at the current site was not a realistic long-term solution.
More than half of the survey participants said they believed relocation would be necessary in the long run. Many people identified the foothills as a preferred relocation site, and some said it would be possible to construct a boat harbor using local rock. Others, however, did not support a move to the foothills, citing a lack of a boat harbor and distance from fish and wildlife resources. A few people recommended relocation to a site upriver or to a location towards Cape Denbigh.
Environmental Changes: The last survey question asked residents about what environmental changes they have observed. While some residents could not think of anything, others provided a wide variety of details about environmental changes, including increased severity of storms, flooding in the flats, later and milder winters, earlier springs, and melting permafrost.
In addition to climate-change-related observations, many residents noted new species have arrived in the area, and changes have occurred to the numbers and distribution of existing species. Residents reported observing fewer ducks and geese and reduced numbers of certain fish such as herring, chum salmon, and king salmon. Increased numbers of crows, ravens, and seagulls were reported. New species observed in the area include killer whales, blow fish, and insects. A number of people reported changes in the condition of species, such as reduced blubber in seals, thinner fish, and deformed birds.

Point Lay; Underlying causes of rapid tundra cliff retreat are uncertain and there is little information on how this rapid cliff retreat interacts with the nearshore sediment budget. The purpose of this study is to further delineate the controlling processes of tundra cliff erosion on the North Slope, including Point Lay, Alaska. Specifically, the purpose is to determine the primary causes of the widespread and rapid coastal retreat, determine seasonal variation of retreat rates and erosional processes, determine the relation of these processes to seasonal variation of thaw and surface heat fluxes, assess the direct and indirect effects of permafrost on coastal retreat, develop a tundra cliff sediment budget to assess the contribution of subaerial processes and paths of sediment movement, and evaluate seawater effects on the thermal degradation of permafrost and the subsequent influence on tundra cliff erosion.

Barrow; The community of Barrow has been recognized as receiving agency actions from the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF). One ADOT&PF project in Barrow relocated the Arctic Research Center access road due to erosion.

Clark's Point Ekuk; Clark’s Point has been identified as receiving agency actions from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Division of Emergency Management (EM). A flooding event is also reported for Clark’s Point during 2005.

Gambell; This report is a follow-up to the recommendations made in April 2008 (in which Gambell was not mentioned), and provides recommendations for actions and policies to be implemented in 2009 and 2010.
The community of Gambell has been recognized as receiving agency actions from the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. The status of the Gambell evacuation road is also mentioned in this report.

Golovin; The community of Golovin has been recognized as receiving agency actions from four of the five main supporting agencies. Documented dates of flood disasters in Golovin are also compiled.

Hooper Bay; Hooper Bay has been recognized as receiving agency activity for a variety of community projects from the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED), the Division of Emergency Management (DEM), and the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). The airport at Hooper Bay has undergone one major project in the past 15 years and several smaller projects within the last 5 years, both funded by the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and the Alaska General Fund (GF). Between 1978 and 2008 the document identifies two floods affecting Hooper Bay that have resulted in the declaration of a state disaster, one in 1979 and the other in 2004.

Kivalina; The Immediate Action Workgroup was established to address known threats to Alaskan communities caused by coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, flooding, and fires. This report is a follow-up to the recommendations made in April 2008, and provides recommendations for actions and policies to be implemented in 2009 and 2010. Information from the report pertaining to Kivalina is summarized below:
•“Planning: Community planning efforts need to work through issues given that its preferred relocation site has been deemed inadequate by the Corps due to permafrost soils.
•Revetment: $3.3 million from the State to the NWAB has leveraged $12.5 million from Corps for the revetment and another $500,000 for design work.
•Mapping: Complete geologic and hazard mapping to identify sites acceptable for evacuation road and relocation sites ($180,000).
•Plans: Complete Emergency Operations, Community Evacuation, and Hazard Mitigation plans. Complete training and drills.
•Community Mitigation and Relocation Planning and Coordination: DCRA/DCCED is working with the City and Tribe to develop a proposal for a community planning grant.
•Leverage Resources: Reduce state capital budget expenditures by leveraging other resources.
•DOTPF Preliminary Engineering: Coordinate state efforts with Corps for design of shoreline protection measures. The estimate for erosion control near airport is considerably higher than estimates from FEMA, and DOTPF is working with FEMA to request additional funding.”

Kotlik; Kotlik was identified as receiving agency actions from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED).

Kwigillingok; Kwigillingok was mentioned as receiving agency actions from the Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development and the Division of Emergency Management for a variety of community projects. Recorded events of flooding for the community were during 1979 and 1990.

Nunam Iqua; Nunam Iqua has been recognized as receiving agency actions from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development, Division of Emergency Management, and the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. There has been one flood, in 1979, defined as a disaster event. Other events have caused damage to the airport boardwalks; projects have been pursued by the FAA to eliminate the boardwalks and construct a road for access.

Quinhagak; The community of Quinhagak has been recognized as receiving agency actions from the Division of Emergency Management. Flooding events for Quinhagak are also documented for 1979 and 2005.

Saint Michael; The community of Saint Michael has been recognized as receiving agency actions from two of the six agencies working to respond to community needs.

Scammon Bay; Scammon Bay has a reported flood in 1979, and is identified as receiving agency actions from the Division of Emergency Management.

Selawik; The community of Selawik has been recognized as receiving agency actions from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Shaktoolik; This report provides 2009 recommendations from the Immediate Action Workgroup (IAWG) to the Alaska Gover¬nor’s Subcabinet on Climate Change. Information presented in the report for Shaktoolik is summarized below.
•Priority Communities: Shaktoolik was included in the list of “communities in peril” that were the focus of the report, along with Newtok, Shishmaref, Kivalina, Koyukuk, and Unalakleet.
•Community Planning: The report recommended community planning be conducted to address threats from storm surges, erosion, and battering of logs against structures during storms.
•Emergency Planning: State funding ($400,000) and federal funding ($125,000) were provided to prepare Emergency Operations, Community Evacuation, and Hazard Mitigation plans and for training. The community identified cabins along the evacuation route that could be used in an emergency.
•Evacuation Road: The community requested $500,000 from the State of Alaska for road design. Kawerak, Inc., and the Denali Commission completed a reconnaissance study.
•Shelter: Shaktoolik is investigating the feasibility of developing an emergency shelter in the community.
•Funding: The report recommends Shaktoolik request Congress add it to the Section 117 Alaska Coastal Erosion Program. The report states Shaktoolik has been allocated $16.6 million between 1988 and 2012 for public infrastructure. Shaktoolik is eligible for funds from the Alaska Climate Change Impact Mitigation Program.
•Mapping: The DNR Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys has funding to complete hazards mapping.
•Coordination: The Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities received state funding to work with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development to identify existing data and missing information. Site surveys, material source investigations, hazard mapping, geotechnical and environmental studies, and permitting studies need to be completed. The IAG recommended a phased and coordinated approach among the communities of Shishmaref, Kivalina, Shaktoolik, and Unalakleet.
•Obstacles: The report found that because there is no definite timeline or authorities for erosion control and relocation, it is difficult to coordinate and focus resources.

Shishmaref; Shishmaref is identified as needing a community plan to coordinate the various organizations involved in the responses and mitigation of flooding and erosion hazards. Flooding and erosion projects are outlined from 2009 to 2010, and additional projects necessary to mitigate these hazards are suggested.

Teller; Teller was identified as receiving agency actions from the Department of Community, Commerce & Economic Develop¬ment (DCCED) and the Division of Emergency Management (EM). A flooding event was recorded for 1990.

Unalakleet; Unalakleet has been identified as one of the communities facing imminent threats such as loss of life, loss of infrastructure, loss of public and private property, or health epidemics.
Community planning for Unalakleet is supported by Kawerak, DOT&PF, and USACE projects. Therefore the workgroup suggests the planning needs are less critical than those of the other five communities being considered. In FY2009, $5 million in state funds was appropriated to Unalakleet to leverage an additional $18.5 million from USACE to build necessary revetment structures. Coordination with DOT&PF has saved on mobilization and demobilization costs by using heavy equipment already in the community. The old high school gym has been scheduled to be torn down, and could be rebuilt on higher ground to serve as an emergency evacuation building and community center. Unalakleet has requested $1 million for this project, but submitted the request after the deadline.

Kaktovik; Kaktovik was recognized as receiving agency action from the Division of Emergency Management. A storm event is reported for Kaktovik during 2008.

Kivalina; This report provides recommendations to the Alaska Governor’s Subcabinet on Climate Change. The Immediate Action Workgroup (IAWG) reports to this subcabinet. This report includes community profiles and immediate actions. Kivalina projects are summarized below.
•Revetment: The erosion control project involves construction of 2,000 feet on the ocean side ($16 million) and 1,300 feet of revetment on the lagoon side ($26 million).
•Third Party Review: State of Alaska will serve as third party review of geologic aspects of Corps relocation reports ($12,000). Outcome of this review is critical to moving forward on the relocation.
•Relocation Feasibility Study: The Department of Natural Resources DGGS will serve as lead for geologic mapping using CIAP funds ($180,000).

•Emergency Plans: Complete Emergency Operations Plan, Revise Community Evacuation Plan based on drills, and complete Hazard Mitigation Plan ($75,000–$100,000).
•Evacuation Road: The Denali Commission and NWAB are the lead on the feasibility study.
•Relocation Plan: The City, tribe, school, Borough and NANA need to form a local planning committee. Funding will be needed to hire a contractor to work with the community to develop the plan. Need a “how to” guide for steps needed for a relocation plan.

Shaktoolik; This report provides recommendations to the Alaska Governor’s Subcabinet on Climate Change. The Immediate Action Workgroup (IAW) reports to this subcabinet. This report includes community profiles and immediate actions. The report identified immediate priorities for Shaktoolik including a preliminary relocation site assess¬ment, an evacuation road, geologic mapping, and completion of emergency plans and training. Five specific projects were identified in the report:
1.Emergency Plans: Completion of training and Emergency Operations, Community Evacuation, and Hazard Mitigation Plans.
2.Evacuation Road: Completion of a reconnaissance study for an evacuation road.
3.Cabins: Identify cabins that should be built along the evacuation road for emergency housing and a 30kw generator.
4.Relocation Site: Completion of a preliminary site relocation assessment.
5.Relocation Plan: Form a local planning committee to complete a relocation plan (tribe, city, school, village corporation, and Kawerak).

Shishmaref; Shishmaref was one of six communities addressed in this report as needing immediate action from the state regarding threats to erosion and flooding.
To protect the washeteria and lagoon in Shishmaref, the subcabinet recommends the construction of an extension on the Army Corps revetment already under contract. The cost for this project, estimated at $25 million, would be shared between the Corps and the State. The contents of this report also advise Shishmaref residents to begin plan¬ning and training for a suite of emergency operations that will prepare the community for emergency evacuation.
According to this report, a local planning committee has formed with the intent of developing a relocation plan. Relocation siting and reconnaissance assessments need to be conducted for a relocation road, new airport, and new community location. At the time of publication, the Corps of Engineers had been approved to begin a relocation feasibility study but funds were not yet appropriated.

Unalakleet; This report provides recommendations to the Alaska Governor’s Subcabinet on Climate Change by the Immediate Action Workgroup (IAWG). Unalakleet has been identified as susceptible to erosion damages. Another potential threat is the presence of logs from the Yukon River, which can be destructive during storm surges. The recom¬mended $12.8 million erosion mitigation project is a 1,500-foot-long rock revetment, which would be construc¬ted along an existing gabion revetment. Projects to address imminent threats are the development of emergency plans and training/drills, revetment design/construction, and local street rehabilitation projects.

Kaktovik; Kaktovik was mentioned as one of nine communities under examination of the nature of imminent threats from flooding and erosion.

•Investigate cost savings for fuel, power, and freight,
•Investigate opportunities for gravel and rock,
•Evaluate the pros and cons of using existing aviation services while a new airport is constructed,
•Look into costs for a road to river resources if the location is north of the port, and
•Investigate funding partnerships among government agencies.

Deering; The main hazards identified and described for Deering are erosion, flooding, and severe weather.

Selawik; The main hazards identified and described for Selawik are flooding and erosion, with moderate risks associated with severe weather.

The first relocation of Kaktovik in 1952 was induced by the building of an Air Force air strip in the village. All structures were hauled 1,650 yards up the beach to the northwest. The new village site was along a slowly-eroding section of beach and in the landing pattern of the airfield. Because of changes in the DEW line, the village was relocated again in 1953. The new village was moved in the same manner as the first relocation, planting the village further to the west and a little further back from the beach. The village remained at this location until 1964, when the village was again moved to accommodate expanding Air Force facilities. Unlike other moves, the village actively participated in this move. The new village site was located on the east shore of the island facing Kaktovik Lagoon, on 280.29 acres. The site is on silty soils with a complete absence of gravel.
This study was an attempt to assess the past and present relationships between the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force and the northern Eskimo village of Kaktovik, Alaska, specifically how land withdrawals were established,the priorities involved, and their impact on this village.

“Kivalina is situated on an island in front of Corwin Lagoon, and is very beautifully situated when the weather is nice and calm, but when the wind blows from the south it raises the water in the ocean until it sometimes almost comes over the banks. It washed . . . of the south. East end of the Island . . . and the natives are beginning to talk of moving. We believe that to move would be the wiser if not the safer plan. We experienced some uneasiness last fall, as the beach is only about 100 feet from the schoolhouse and comes closer every year. The water was splashing up over the bank in places for we had a heavy south wind and it lasted for three or four days causing the rise. We believe that if it could be satisfactorily arranged, to consolidate Kivalina and Noatak villages somewhere on the Noatak river, would be a great place.”

Shaktoolik; This report involved field surveys in Norton Sound of the debris line caused by the 1974 storm. The debris line is the result of the highest storm surge (still water level during a storm) and wave run-up. Two of the survey locations are near the existing and former Shaktoolik village site. The report found that the highest debris line in Norton Sound (5 meters) was in eastern Norton Sound, and the lowest debris line was in Norton Bay.

Barrow; Erosion at Barrow is summarized in this report as being initiated by thermal erosion; the eroded material is later carried away by wave transport processes. Previous engineering measures have been taken to curtail rates of erosion in this area, but are considered short term projects. The authors of this report conclude that an in-depth analysis of erosion at Barrow would be a duplication of work being done by the North Slope Borough, and they refer the reader to recommendations made in that report.

Clark's Point Ekuk; Erosion at Clark’s Point is dominated by shoreline erosion and coastal flooding from the tides of Bristol Bay. Public and private buildings are expected to be impacted by erosion within 25 years based on current rates of erosion. A net northerly longshore transport rate was determined to be 73,000 cubic yards per year. To mitigate the erosion, either a rip rap seawall or a precast concrete and steel bulkhead retaining wall is recommended for 2600 feet of the shoreline fronting the village.

Deering; The destruction of beach grass in Deering makes the use of fuel drums, gabion baskets, or coarse rock a poor method of preventing erosion. The report suggests using natural material from the area in the original beach slope angle for erosion protection. The sand spit, however, will remain vulnerable to flooding during major storms of about ten year frequency.

Gambell; Erosion at Gambell was documented as occurring at the sand point on the edge of the airport. Because of the steep sandy beach, a rock wall was not recommended. Instead the recommendation was made to monitor the rate of erosion for changes, and to push sand onto the beach off the taxiway after storm surges.

Golovin; The erosion problem in Golovin has been identified by beach mining at the sediment source to the current village site. This report suggests using a beach fill in front of the community to stabilize the natural slope and for the community to stop all beach mining operations.

Kivalina; Erosion at Kivalina is predominantly at the north end of the airport and alongside the lagoon. For the erosion at the lagoon side, sand bags and gabion baskets are suggested along with backfill and replanting of beach grass. At the airport, gabion baskets are also suggested, but at a steeper angle. Because of the low grade slope of the beach, structures that would increase turbulence should not be used.

Kotlik; Erosion at Kotlik was shown to have affected about 3,000 feet of riverbank next to the community. Public and private buildings are expected to be impacted by erosion within 10 years based on current rates of erosion. The suggested was made to build two 250 feet concrete mats and 1,150 feet of pile and fascine revetment to reduce threats to erosion in the community.

Kwigillingok; Kwigillingok was found to have 1750 ft of the community subject to 1.4 ft of erosion per year. The community is set back from the riverside so is estimated to have erosion problems within 25 years. Storm surge, however, brings potential flooding hazards to the community. This report suggests constructing a gravel berm with a seeding to control for this hazard.

Saint Michael; The erosion at Saint Michael is occurring at the end of the airport runway. The coastal bluff that makes up the end of the runway is subject to thermal erosion and wave undercutting. The suggested solution would be to construct a riprap rock wall at the end of the runway, and fill with peat for insulation. The rock source to be used is 2 miles from the construction site.

Selawik; The mayor of Selawik was quoted as saying, “The erosion problem that existed resulted from boat-generated waves washing away the silt riverbanks”. To address this concern, the recommendation was made to use spruce logs to construct log crib walls in the few areas needing revetments.

Shishmaref; The report describes erosion at Shishmaref as being driven by storms from the Chukchi Sea. Increased water levels and wave run-up during these storm events actively undercut the banks of the island. The authors of this report suggested erosion protection in the form of 1,000 feet of rip rap or grout-filled fabric bags on the seaward side of the island.

Teller; Erosion at Teller has been dominated by storm tides on the side of Port Clarence, threatening the sewage lagoon. The sheet piled and barrel walls currently in place has been pulled toward the beach by wave action. The recom¬mendation is made to use infilling of the existing wall, and to extend the sheet pile wall to connect with the barrel walls. Materials used should be the same size as the existing beach, as to avoid eddying and undercutting.

Unalakleet; Unalakleet was identified as having a persistent erosion problem at the end of the sand spit, making buildings in town vulnerable to flooding and erosion damage. This report recommends that Unalakleet build a rock revet¬ment at the very southern tip of the spit with rock materials non-native to the area.

Hooper Bay; Hooper Bay is one of the two communities described in terms of its climate, topography, ocean currents and sea ice, and community setting. Subsistence practices and environmental constraints are described in detail and mapped for each season.

Kwigillingok; The report examines the effects of ecological and environmental conditions on subsistence activities. Kwigillingok is a coastal plain community situated on generally low and flat land. The myriad lakes and ponds in this area are drained by rivers and sloughs that are short and shallow. The coastline is bordered by extensive tidal flats and dotted by a few sandbar islands.

Barrow; Point Barrow was used as a research station representative of a salt marsh habitat. Vegetation in this environment is controlled by mean high water level. Tidal storms were found to influence vegetation growth because of salt burn, represented by varying degrees of plant tissue death.

Deering; Deering was used as a research station representative of a coastal-bluff-dominated habitat. This environment was associated with high rates of coastal erosion, low vegetative cover, and a poorly defined plant community assemblage.

Kaktovik; Barter Island, on which Kaktovik is located, was used as a research station representative of the salt marsh habitat. The vegetation of this environment was controlled by mean high water level. Tidal storms were found to influence vegetal growth because of salt burn, represented by varying degrees of necrosis.

The physical environment is described in terms of geomorphology, hydrology, bathymetry, sedimentology, coastal circulation, hydrography, and environmental sensitivity mapping. The biological environment is described in terms of primary productivity, invertebrates, fisheries, avifauna, and mammals.
Areas of research highlighted as in need of further exploration are ice-edge effects, prevailing sea ice movements to the southwest, and subsurface northwesterly transport of Norton Sound water masses. If oil and gas exploration develops, more work must be conducted to determine the effects that this activity would have on the estuarine habitat.

Unalakleet; Mean monthly wind statistics from Unalakleet were used to illustrate the large-scale wind field affecting the Yukon Delta. This included the average wind speed and direction during specific seasons.

Gambell; Gambell is located on a gravel spit at the northwest end of St. Lawrence Island, about 35 ft amsl. Troutman Lake is a large body of fresh water 4 ft amsl, bounded by the gravel spit. The gravel spit containes loose, well-rounded, medium-coarse granitic sand and gravel. The material is mostly erosional from the Savoukuk Mountain, deposited outward by wave action. Permafrost has been reported at a depth of 22 feet below the ANS school, and a depth of 8 feet elsewhere.

Savoonga; Savoonga is on the north shore of St. Lawrence Island, on a low, broad point, exposed almost continuously to winds from the Bering Sea. The Savoonga area is described as being underlain by olivine basalt lava flows from the Kookooligit Mountains. The presence of marine mud overlying the basalt is provided as evidence of sea-level regression in the area. Permafrost was reportedly encountered at a depth of 5 feet. Detailed chemical analysis of water samples taken from Savoonga wells, Troutman Lake, and Savoonga Creek are included in the report.

Barrow; Storm profiles specific to Barrow are recorded for 1963, 1968, 1970, 1977, and 1978.

Clark's Point Ekuk; Storm profiles specific to Clark’s Point are recorded for 1964, 1978, and 1980. Storm profiles are also provided for Ekuk for 1969 and 1980.

Deering; Storm profiles specific to Deering are recorded for 1974 and 1963.

Gambell; Four storms were documented for Gambell, occurring in 1946, 1969, 1972, and 1978.

Golovin; Two storms, in 1974 and 1977, were documented for Golovin and used for this study.

Hooper Bay; The offshore shape of the sea floor in the lower Kuskokwim and Bristol Bay area is identified as conducive to the formation and enhancement of storm surges. Storm profiles specific to Hooper Bay are recorded for 1978 and 1979.

Kaktovik; This study compiles historical climatological data to develop a surge forecast regression equation. One storm profile specific to Kaktovik, from 1972, was used in this report.

Kivalina; The Seward Peninsula, Norton Sound, and Lower Yukon area are identified as having the greatest frequency of reported storms. One storm, from 1976, was documented for Kivalina and used for this study; it was reported to have flooded 20–30% of the community and the water level was 1 foot below the lowest home. This study estimated the 100-year flood level in Kivalina to be 8.3 feet above MLLW.

Kotlik; Storm profiles specific to Kotlik are recorded for 1978 and 1980.

Kwigillingok; The offshore shape of the sea floor in the lower Kuskokwim and Bristol Bay area is identified as conducive to the formation and enhancement of storm surges. One storm surge, in 1979, was recorded for Kwigillingok.

Nunam Iqua; One storm surge, in 1974, was recorded for Sheldon Point and used in this report.

Point Lay; Storm profiles specific to Point Lay are recorded for 1963 and 1972.

Quinhagak; The offshore shape of the sea floor in the lower Kuskokwim and Bristol Bay area is identified as conducive to the formation and enhancement of storm surges. One storm profile, recorded during 1979, is specific to Quinhagak.

Saint Michael; The Seward Peninsula, Norton Sound, and Lower Yukon areas are identified as having the greatest frequency of reported coastal storms in Alaska. Norton Sound exhibits shallow waters offshore, combined with the open waters of the Bering Sea, allowing for a long fetch for storm wave development. The range of wind directions for the development of storm surges is limited to west–southwest to west; however, flooding is experienced due to rising water levels throughout the Sound. Three storms, in 1913, 1973, and 1974, were documented for Saint Michael and used for this study.

Scammon Bay; The offshore shape of the sea floor in the lower Kuskokwim and Bristol Bay area is identified as conducive to the formation and enhancement of storm surges. Storm profiles specific to Scammon Bay are recorded for 1974 and 1979.

Shaktoolik; This project investigated the climatology of storm surges and refined procedures for storm-surge forecasting. Storm data for 90 storms since 1954 were used in the study. Intense atmospheric low-pressure systems with strong winds onshore or along the shore create storm surges. Winds can develop over several hundred miles of open water (fetch). Gently sloping nearshore areas and sufficient fetch are needed for storm surges. The study found that ice cover generally dampens waves, but 3-foot storm surges have occurred when there were 3 feet of ice. The upper limit of storm surges is generally 12 feet.
The Chukchi Sea is one of the areas in Alaska conducive to storm surges. Most storm surges in this area occur in the autumn. The study estimated that a 10.6 foot storm surge could be expected once every 100 years.

Shishmaref; The Seward Peninsula, Norton Sound, and Lower Yukon area are identified as having the greatest frequency of reported storms. Storm profiles specific to Shishmaref are recorded for 1973, 1974, and 1979.

Teller; The Seward Peninsula, Norton Sound, and Lower Yukon area is identified as having the greatest frequency of reported storms. Four storms were documented for Teller and used for this study during the dates of 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1978.

Unalakleet; The objective of this study was to improve the quality of life and the security of property in coastal areas suscep¬tible to flooding by enhancing the decision-making process for human activities and development. This study compiles historical climatological data to develop a surge forecast regression equation.
The Seward Peninsula, Norton Sound, and Lower Yukon areas are identified as having the greatest frequency of reported coastal storms in Alaska. Norton Sound exhibits shallow waters offshore, combined with the open waters of the Bering Sea, allowing for a long fetch for storm-wave development. The range of wind directions for the development of storm surges is limited to west–southwest to west; however, flooding is experienced due to rising water levels throughout the Sound.
Nine of the ten storm-surge cases described in detail for Unalakleet occurred in the fall, the other in July. A storm in October 1963 was responsible for $100,000 in damages.

Kivalina; This report addresses three questions posed by Congress for seven communities in Alaska, including Kivalina:
1.What is the ongoing cost of erosion?
2.What would the cost be to relocate or co-locate these communities? and
3.How long do these communities have left until there is complete failure of land?
The study found that it would cost approximately $15 million to construct erosion protection for Kivalina; it would cost between $95 million and $125 million to relocate, and the community has between 10 and 15 years at its current location.
The report states the following criteria would be used for selection of a new site:Iit would not be in a flood zone, it would have room for community expansion, it would have an accessible water supply, and it would be near important subsistence resources. There would be some costs associated with decommissioning the old site, but some families would likely maintain structures for subsistence use. An estimated 15–20 years would be needed for community relocation. In calculating the cost of relocation, this report assumed the villages would be relocated using similar utilities and services as they have presently.
Kivalina receives cyclic erosion and accretion. As a result of global climate change, there is a longer period of open water, which leads to increased damage from fall storms. Erosion control efforts by the state between 1985 and 2002 cost $477,000, and efforts during the last 2 years cost $850,000.
Cost of relocating Kivalina to a new site is estimated to be $125 million. This estimate assumes a minimal level of housing, water, and sanitation facilities. Co-location of the community to Kotzebue would cost an estimated $95 million.

Shishmaref; This report documents an investigation of issues surrounding erosion at several Alaska Native villages. It includes an examination of erosion rates and controls, potential relocation sites, and impacts to Alaska Native culture and tradition. Erosion protection of Shishmaref, estimated at a cost of $16 million, is projected to provide 10–15 years of community site stability. This report includes different options for project locations with cost and benefit analyses.

Unalakleet; Unalakleet is identified as requiring $30 million for future erosion protection, and was not identi¬fied as in need of immediate relocation efforts because the community location is described as stable on a 100-year timescale. The project to mitigate erosion is the construction of a riprap revetment. The loss of residential, commercial, and public buildings and infrastructure due to erosion is more than $105 million for the 50-year project horizon if no action is taken.

•Storm Surges: The report references different 100-year storm surge estimates, including an estimate of a 10.5 foot surge resulting in a 6 foot flood. A 2003 working draft report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that 1970 “storm of record” had a 13.57 foot surge that inundated part of the community. This draft report estimated the 100-year storm surge would reach an elevation of 16.1 feet.
•Sea Level Rise: This study projects sea level rise to be 1–2 feet over the next 100 years.
•Permafrost: Accelerated permafrost melting will likely result in subsidence and erosion in the region. This may not be an issue for the current townsite because of sandy soils that are not ice-rich. Soils are permanently frozen except in the active layer and active beach zones.
Existing Townsite Conditions: The report summarizes the current situation in Kivalina. The report states that social conditions include overcrowding, lack of infrastructure, loss of traditional cultural knowledge, and poor living conditions that have led to feelings of hopelessness.
•Water: The current water collection and distribution system is inadequate. Tanks can only be replenished during part of the year, and the storage capacity is insufficient, resulting in periodic water shortages. The only buildings with piped water are the washeteria, school, and clinic.
•Human Waste: Residents use 5 gallon “honey buckets” lined with plastic bags and must transport the waste to a 60 × 60 × 8 metal containment basin adjacent to the dump. This system presents a health hazard due to accidental spills during collection and storage and possible leaching from the containment basin.
•Solid Waste: The dump site, built in 1996, is too close to the airport and there is a concern about bird strikes. It occupies a 3.4-acre parcel.
•Transportation: The airstrip is subject to heavy snow drifting because it is perpendicular to prevailing winds. High speed 4-wheeler traffic has displaced gravel from community roads.
•Housing: There is no room for future growth, and families have moved away from the village. A new site with adequate room for expansion would likely lead to a doubling of the population in 20 years.
Oceanography: The report acknowledges that the ocean currents involve complex dynamics associated with flows between the Bering and Chukchi seas.
•Winds from the south to southwest generate waves that expend their full energy on Kivalina’s beach.
•Sediments remain offshore and are available for rebuilding the beach under the action of smaller waves.
•Waves from the south to southeast are not as large as those from the southwest because of the shorter fetch. Waves from this direction are more destructive when combined with a storm surge.
Summary of option to remain at current site (cost: $196.2 million): The report found the “do nothing” option unacceptable. Remaining at the current site would require certain improvements:
•Installation of gravel fill to a level of 16.5 feet for flood protection.
•Structurally-sound buildings would need to be moved and raised, and other buildings replaced.
•Installation of 4,285 feet of armor around the community.
•Construction of a filtration system at the Wulik River for year-round water.
•Development of a package treatment plant for wastewater with a buried drain field.
•Possible addition of 24 new homes.
•Addition of a buried utility system.
•The solid waste system would need to be brought up to DEC regulations.
•The current power generation system would need to be upgraded in about 8 years.
The report recommended no further investigation of this site because of risks of erosion. While gravel fill would not be needed for protection of the permafrost, 6.5 feet of fill would be needed for protection from the 100-year storm surge.
Summary of Simiq relocation option (cost: $251.5 million): This site is 4 miles northeast of Kivalina. Gravel fill would need to be placed to a height of 9 feet. The report discusses options for transportation and utilities. Subsistence access would be by a road to the lagoon. The report recommended against further consideration of this site because of unstable, ice-rich, permafrost soils.
Summary of Imnakuk Bluff relocation option (cost: $248.7 million): This site is 5.5 miles northeast of the community, above the Kivalina River. Extreme winds at this site provide a severe constraint. Ice-rich permafrost at the site would require 9 feet of fill. The report discusses options for transportation and utilities. Subsistence access would be difficult due to shallow channels in the Kivalina River. The report recommended further investigation of this site because there was no known flooding or erosion.
Summary of Tachim Isua relocation option (cost: $154.9 million): This site is 9 miles north of the community. Fill would only be needed in areas of poor soils. The report discusses options for transportation, and utilities would be buried below ground. A 1.5-mile road would lead to the Chukchi Sea to provide access for marine-based subsistence activities. The site is close enough to the sea to allow subsistence users to watch for whales. The nearby lagoon is too shallow for boats. The report recommended further investigation of this site because it is out of the floodplain, does not have ice-rich permafrost, it would not need gravel fill, and it has no known erosion.
Summary of Kiniktuuraq relocation option (cost: $248.2 million): This site is on the coast about 1 mile south of the community at the southern edge of Kivalina Lagoon. The community selected Kiniktuuraq as the preferred site for relocation in a 2000 election. This site would have similar access to subsistence resources as the current site, and boats could be moored in the lagoon. The report recommended this site not be investigated further because the site is sinking, it is subject to erosion and flooding, and the ice-rich permafrost soils are not suitable (mud and ice). A water system similar to that of Kivalina would be needed due to the lack of nearby surface water or groundwater sources. An underground distribution system would not be feasible due to ice wedges in the soil.
Summary of Igrugaivik relocation option (cost: $246.1 million): This site is adjacent to the Kiniktuuraq site about 2 miles east of Kivalina. No visits to the site were made for this report. The report assumes a 9 foot gravel pad would need to be constructed, and armoring would be needed along the Wulik River. The soils are thaw-unstable and ice-rich. The report outlines options for water, wastewater disposal, and other utilities. A road would be constructed through the Kiniktuuraq site to the ocean. The sand spit would likely need to be armored on all sides for protection against erosion. The report recommended this site not be investigated further because ice-rich permafrost soils are not suitable for construction.
Summary of Kuugruaq relocation option (cost: $245.6 million): This site is directly north of the Igrugaivik site about 2 miles east of Kivalina. No visits to the site were made for this report. The report assumes a 9 foot gravel pad and, similar to Igrugaivik, armoring would be needed along the Wulik River. Previous reports found that limited parts of the site have thaw-stable soils. The report recommended this option not be investigated further because the area floods in the spring and because of ice-rich permafrost soils.
The authors rated each option using 31 siting criteria grouped under four categories: Physical environment, construction and utilities, social and access, and cost. These criteria included risks from natural hazards, suitability of soils, and access to subsistence resources. Tatchim Isua received the highest ranking followed by Imnakuk Bluff. All of the sites other than Tatchim Isua and Kivalina have ice-rich soils. None of the other options were recommended for further investigation.
Due to challenges with all of the options considered in this study, the report states that it may be appropriate to consider additional sites, including a higher rocky area behind the Simiq site and a location that could access both the Wulik River and the Red Dog road system.

1.Details of the relocation of the community to the mainland.
2.Projects completed to date and effectiveness.
3.Recommended projects to help move relocation forward.
Mr. Weyiouanna, on behalf of the Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition, requested appropriation of funds from the State of Alaska and Congress to the Coalition in the amount of $950,818 for the first year of funding and $1,100,000 per year after that until the completed relocation of the community.

Clark's Point Ekuk; The last flood event for Clark’s Point was reported in 1995, with the worst flood event being reported as the 1929 flood, of coastal origin. Recommendations for building elevations are 33.0 feet MLLW, with a 100-year flood elevation expected to be 32.0 feet MLLW. The last flood event for Ekuk was recorded during 1969 from coastal flooding. Comments are available discussing relative water levels around the community from the 1969 flood.

Deering; The most recent flood event reported for Deering was in 1990, caused by an ice jam and spring runoff. The worst flood event on record is listed as occurring in 1974 during a fall storm.

Gambell; The last flood event for Gambell was reported in 1977. Typical storm surge conditions are included from resident reports. Gambell does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Golovin; The worst flood event for Golovin was documented in 1913, in which the National Flood Insurance Program did not participate. Survey information is available for specific buildings that have been previously inundated by a flood event.

Hooper Bay; The last reported flood event in Hooper Bay occurred during November 1991 and the community is listed as not participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Kaktovik; The worst flood event on record for Kaktovik was recorded during 1964 from a coastal storm. Recommended building heights as well as comments from the 1964 flood are available at this site.

Kivalina; The 100-year storm surge height has been calculated as 10.6 feet MLLW for Kivalina. Kivalina has also been listed as not participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Kotlik; The last flood event for Kotlik was in 1987 from stream overflow, and the largest flood on record was in 1974 from a rainfall event. Survey information is available from the 1974 flood event given in elevations based on an arbitrary baseline.

Kwigillingok; The most recent flood event in Kwigillingok was recorded during November 1979, caused by storm surge in the Kuskokwim Bay.

Nunam Iqua; Survey information is provided for estimated flood heights for the 1972 flood in Sheldon Point. Notes are also provided on various areas throughout the community, which were affected by the flood.

Point Lay; Standard flood data are not available for Point Lay, but notes about the community are documented on this site.

Quinhagak; Standard flood data is not available for Quinhagak, but survey information of relative flooding elevations are available as of July 1994.

Saint Michael; The entire community of Saint Michael is above the 100-year floodplain, and there is no record on this site for previous flooding events. Saint Michael is not participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Savoonga; The report has recognized Savoonga as being subject to erosion issues; Savoonga was identified as one of 69 communities where the monitoring of erosion conditions is actively ongoing.

Scammon Bay; Standard flood data is not available for Scammon Bay, but comments regarding flooding events are available.

Selawik; Standard flood data are not available for Selawik, but personal stories from community members are documented on this site.

Shaktoolik; The flood record database states that wave run-up extends to 30 feet elevation on the Norton Sound side of Shaktoolik. Flooding is considerably less on the Shaktoolik River side.

Shishmaref; The last Shishmaref flood event was documented during 1989, with the largest flood on record, in 1973, caused by coastal flooding of the Bering Strait. Notes about the 1973 flood event are provided, with relative storm-surge elevations.

Teller; This website provides flood-hazard data for communities throughout Alaska. A link is provided to a flood-hazard-specific bibliography, maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The last flood event for Teller was reported in 1974. Comments about other flooding events and relative flood elevations are also on this site.

Unalakleet; The highest reported flood event in Unalakleet was 18 ft above MSL in 1965; a recommended minimum building elevation is set 19.0 ft above MSL.

Clark's Point Ekuk; Funding for road planning between Clark’s Point and Ekuk was given in the amount of $50,000 in 2008. The project has since been completed.

Gambell; $850,000 was awarded to Gambell for documentation and construction of an evacuation road in 2011.

Hooper Bay; Hooper Bay was awarded $32,925 in 2008 for subsistence ATV road planning. Between 2007 and 2008 $414,531 was awarded for an Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) wind turbine access road. An additional $134,647 was awarded through the Association of Village Council Presidents in 2011 for community streets. As of March 2011, both the road planning and wind turbine access road projects have been completed, while the community streets project was under construction.

Kwigillingok; Kwigillingok was awarded $150,000 and $125,000 in 2009 and 2011 for the design and completion of an ATV trail.

Nunam Iqua; Nunam Iqua was given $172,363 in 2007 for road improvements and $1,000,000 in 2008 for new boardwalk construction; both projects were completed.

Point Lay; Point Lay was given $478,400 in 2011 for the construction of subdivision roads; this project is still under preliminary design.

Saint Michael; The village of Saint Michael was awarded $150,000 in 2011 for documentation and design for developing a port.

Scammon Bay; Scammon Bay was appropriated $1,689,134 for the rehabilitation of community streets in 2010; the project is currently in the design and construction stage.

Shaktoolik; Shaktoolik had funds of $1 million for the planned development of an evacuation route in 2009, but the funds were cancelled.

Teller; Teller was appropriated $75,000 in 2010 to complete a dust control project at the Teller airport. This project is currently in the design phase.

Unalakleet; Unalakleet was awarded $144,616 and $1,700,000 in FY2006 and FY2007 for street reconstruc¬tion projects, which are now complete.

Barrow; A permafrost depth profile is provided for Barrow that extends 1,330 feet below the surface. The diagram is meant to show the effects of global climate change on soil temperature and active layer thickness. Barrow is described as being exposed to a long fetch, with a continuous 200° arc of exposure to the Arctic Ocean.

Clark's Point Ekuk; Clark’s Point is subject to threats to water infrastructure from flooding of Bristol Bay and the Nushagak River.

Deering; Deering is included in the study group as an example of a low-lying coastal community that is influenced by the “lack of sea ice and timing of sea ice” and the “increased effects of storm surges unbuffered by shorefast ice.” The water infrastructure identified as at risk includes the sewage lagoon and the main water line. Both are located near the shoreline and at risk to coastal and riverine erosion. A general community profile is available within the report that outlines the socioeconomic, geologic and climatic setting, provides an overview of the existing water resources and summarizes a brief history of documented historical impacts to existing water infrastructure.

Golovin; Golovin is identified as being susceptible to lack of sea ice, changed timing in sea ice formation, and increased effects of storm surges on the unbuffered shoreline. The community water storage tank and septic lines are identified as being at risk from melting permafrost, coastal and river erosion, and ivu. A general community profile is available in the report that outlines the socioeconomic, geologic, and climatic setting, provides an overview of the existing water resources in the community, and summarizes a brief history of documented historical impacts to existing water infrastructure.

Kotlik; For this study, Kotlik was examined for melting permafrost. It was reported that Kotlik had 60% of the community at risk from erosion and 100% susceptible to flooding from the Yukon River and coastal surge. The landfill was included as a critical facility at risk to these hazards and may affect water infrastructure if damaged.

Kwigillingok; The water infrastructure risks are unknown for Kwigillingok; however, there are potential risks to flooding from coastal storm surge. Kwigillingok was evaluated in less detail than the main communities of the report because of the need for additional information.

Quinhagak; A general community profile is available in the report that outlines the socioeconomic, geologic, and climatic setting, provides an overview of the existing water resources, and includes a brief history of documented historical impacts to existing water infrastructure in Quinhagak. Quinhagak was identified as one of 25 communities likely to face climate-change-related impacts to their water infrastructure. The local water pump is at risk from river channel migration. The water quality is changing because of the location of the community well infiltration pump. This has caused the need for a more extensive water filtration procedure.

Saint Michael; A general community profile is available in the report that outlines the socioeconomic, geologic, and climatic setting, provides an overview of the existing water resources in the community, and summarizes a brief history of documented historical impacts to existing water infrastructure.

Scammon Bay; Scammon Bay has not had erosion problems reported caused by the Kun River; however, erosion is occurring at sites built on substandard fill. The mode of erosion identified in this report is permafrost melting.

Selawik; The water infrastructure identified as at risk in Selawik includes the water lines and tanks that are exposed to erosion along the Selawik River, driven by melting permafrost and thermokarst. A general community profile is available in the report that outlines the socioeconomic, geologic, and climatic setting, provides an overview of the existing water resources and summarizes a brief history of documented historical impacts to existing water infrastructure.

Teller; Teller was one of 25 communities identified as likely to face climate-change-related impacts to water infrastruc¬ture. The sewage lagoon was reported as being at risk from coastal flooding. A general community profile is available in the report that outlines the socioeconomic, geologic, and climatic setting, provides an overview of the existing water resources in the community, and summarizes a brief history of documented historical impacts to existing water infrastructure.

Clark's Point Ekuk; The report has designated 26 communities as priority action communities, including Clark’s Point. Erosion at Clark’s Point is identified as occurring along the Nushagak Bay and River. Flooding, spring breakup, high tides, and wind and wave activity perpetuate the erosion issues. The average long-term rate of erosion along the community has been reported as 2 to 4 feet per year. Ekuk is identified as one of 20 communities having erosion issues.

Deering; The report designated 26 communities, including Deering, as priority action communities. The Army Corps of Engineers identified Deering as susceptible to coastal and riverine erosion, primarily due to its location on a gravel spit. Erosion response in Deering included a State emergency erosion protection grant in 1995 with a total project cost of $500,000, as well as the completion of two COE revetments amounting to 1,400 feet of shore protection.

Gambell; The report has recognized Gambell as having erosion issues as well as being one of 69 communities where monitoring of conditions is taking place.

Golovin; The report has designated 26 communities as priority action communities, including Golovin. Golovin is subject to both coastal and riverine erosion, resulting in risk to community structures such as the retail store, road, boat launch, utility poles, and others. At the current status, damages are expected within 10 years. Detailed assessment of erosion is still necessary to develop potential solutions.

Hooper Bay; This report has recognized Hooper Bay as being subject to erosion issues; Hooper Bay was identified as one of 69 communities where the monitoring of erosion conditions is actively ongoing.

Kaktovik; This report has recognized Kaktovik as being subject to erosion issues; Kaktovik was identified as one of 69 communities where the monitoring of erosion conditions is actively ongoing.

Kivalina; The report designated 26 communities, including Kivalina, as priority action communities. The assessment summarizes earlier studies about the effects of coastal erosion on selected communities, including Kivalina. The document summarized the results of a 2006 COE study that found:
1.The costs of future erosion protection for Kivalina would be $15 million,
2.It would cost between $95 and $125 million to relocate the community, and
3.The community has 10–15 years left at its current site.
The document reported that 2006 legislation by Congress provided funds to implement erosion-control projects, and an estimated $30 million would be needed to complete erosion control projects in Kivalina. The report states that Kivalina had nine erosion control projects between 1992 and 2007 at a cost of $325,000. Most of the projects dealt with community and were funded by the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development.
Online access to this document includes a link to Erosion Information Papers specific to each community. These Alaska Village Erosion Technical Assistance (AVETA) program reports include a description of the community setting, erosion problem, and potential damages as well as historic/predicted shoreline position maps (based on approximated erosion rates) and community-provided photos of erosion.

Kotlik; The erosion at Kotlik, about 3 feet per year, is reported as riverine erosion. Several community structures as well as roads are at risk from erosion. Three erosion control projects have been completed in Kotlik, costing a total of about $83,000. All projects were capital matching grants funded by DCCED. It is recommended that Kotlik begin a detailed assessment identifying possible solutions to the erosion issues. The assessment would cost about $100,000.

Kwigillingok; This report has recognized Kwigillingok as one of 26 priority action communities having erosion issues.
The erosion at Kwigillingok has been identified as occurring primarily during fall storms. Permafrost thaw and increased soil pore pressure are responsible for saturating the soil, making it unstable and erodible. The erosion is affecting residential properties, the fishery structures, and the barge landing.

Nunam Iqua; This report has recognized Nunam Iqua as one of 178 communities identified as having erosion issues.

Point Lay; The report has designated 178 communities as having erosion issues, including Point Lay.

Saint Michael; The report has designated 26 communities as priority action communities, including Saint Michael.
The erosion at Saint Michael has been determined to be caused by high tides, storm surges, wind and waves, melting permafrost, and early melting sea ice. The average erosion rate is 3 feet per year in front of the community. Some community structures have been moved, but others are still vulnerable to erosion in the next 10 years. The Corps suggests a need for a detailed assessment of the erosion problem that would cost $100,000.

Savoonga; Savoonga was recognized as one of the 184 Alaska Native Villages affected by flooding and erosion.

Selawik; The report designated 26 communities, including Selawik, as priority action communities.
Online access to this document includes a link to Erosion Information Papers specific to each community. These Alaska Village Erosion Technical Assistance Program (AVETA) reports include a description of the community setting, erosion problem, and potential damages as well as historic/predicted shoreline position maps (based on approximated erosion rates) and community-provided photos of erosion.

Shaktoolik; This report presents the results of the Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, which found that Shaktoolik is one of 26 Alaska communities designated as Priority Action Communities. This designation indicates an immediate need for action, which includes either an evaluation of potential solutions or continuing efforts to manage erosion. Priority Action Communities have reported serious erosion that threatens community viability. Appendix F of this report includes a detailed erosion assessment for Shaktoolik. The assessment found that Shaktoolik experi¬ences both coastal erosion from Norton Sound and riverine erosion from the Tagoomenik River. It states the com¬munity is vulnerable to future storm damage in the next 10 years due to erosion of natural protection. Erosion could cause isolation of the community and loss of its water source if the spit erodes south of the village.
The report identified Shaktoolik as a target community for continuation of existing Corps of Engineers studies. The Corps is investigating erosion at Shaktoolik under funding from the Baseline Erosion Assessment, the Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction program, and section 103 of the 1962 Rivers and Harbor Act. The report states that the community’s long-term goal is to relocate, and the next step is to complete planning and design efforts for a 14.6 mile road to the relocation site.
Appendix H of the assessment discusses three expedient coastal protection measures appropriate for Alaska considering locally available materials and the ability for a locally mobilized work force.
•Geotextile sandbags, composed of either polyester or polypropylene, filled with sand or gravel. These bags are placed on top of a filter fabric, overlapped and extended below MLLW. This alternative requires annual maintenance and may not be suitable to areas subject to damage from ice ride-up.
•Beach nourishment involves replacement of sediments eroded from a beach with material at least as coarse as the eroded materials. Materials can be placed from onshore sources or dredged from offshore sources. Wider beaches reduce damage from storms, and erosion of the new materials to areas offshore will reduce the number of large waves reaching shore. Beach nourishment efforts will need to be continued periodically, depending on the rate of erosion of the new material.
•Modified geotextile wrap-around revetments involve filling large sheets of fabric and wrapping them around into an enclosed structure. The layers are sewn together. While this technique has not been used in Alaska, it has had success in other areas.
This appendix describes coastal processes including sediment transport and water levels. The report identifies characteristics of a shoreline protection project: Strength (ability to withstand wave force), flexibility (ability to settle without failing), and protection from undermining of materials in front of the structure (toe protection) and along the sides of the structure. In most circumstances, structures with gentle slopes and high porosity (drainage) will receive less damage from toe scour. A beach or structure with a gentle slope and rough service will receive less run-up than a steep slope with a smooth surface.
The detailed erosion assessment for Shaktoolik (Appendix F) identifies storms coming from the south, storm surges, and sea-ice conditions as the major erosive forces. Major storms in 2003, 2004, and 2005 resulted in considerable coastal erosion, and the airport at the former village site to the south is “just a few hundred feet from erosion ad¬vancing from Tagoomenik River. It is reported that most of Shaktoolik lies within the 100-year floodplain” (p. 2).
The assessment identified six categories of damage: Land, residential structures, commercial structures, public structures, infrastructure, and environmental hazards. The erosion assessment estimates that Shaktoolik is losing about 0.88 acres (38,300 square feet) of land each year with a total expected loss of 44.84 acres during the next 50 years. The assessment estimated damage for three sections of the community:
•Section 1 (9,600 foot area fronting the community): This section is eroding at a rate of 2 feet per year. Next 50-year loss is estimated to be 23.42 acres.
•Section 2 (3,900 foot area south of section 1): This area is eroding at a rate of 1 foot per year. Next 50-year loss is estimated to be 3.86 acres.
•Section 3 (4,700 foot area south of section 2): This area is eroding at a rate of 3 feet per year. Next 50-year loss is estimated to be 17.56 acres.
The erosion assessment states that 14 outbuildings and 18 residences are at risk in the present community site including: Three commercial structures (two tank farms and retail store), four public buildings (including school and its septic system), 5,000 feet of roads, 1,400 feet of sewer lines, 275,000 gallons of bulk fuel storage capacity, 848,000 gallons of water storage and 10,000 feet of water lines, and the power plant. The southern tank farm would need decommissioning in the next 10 years, and the northern tank farm would need decommissioning in 11–30 years. Potential environmental consequences would occur from eroding sewer lines, and erosion of possible soil contamination at the tank farms. An estimated $23 million in future costs would result from damages stem¬ming from erosion.
The assessment identifies potential responses to continued erosion including structural and non-structural solu¬tions. Structural solutions include building a 4,500 foot revetment in front of the community ($29.2 million), con¬structing a 3,350 foot revetment near First Bend to protect the water supply ($18.6 million), constructing a “groin field” to trap sand on the beach ($30.8 million), and beach nourishment ($36.5 million). Nonstructural solutions include relocation of threatened buildings and infrastructure (including water intake area), construction of an evacuation road, and village relocation.

Shishmaref; A history of erosion projects in Shishmaref from 1992 to 2009 includes emergency tank relocation, erosion control, and shoreline protection projects.

Teller; The report has designated 178 communities as having erosion issues, including Teller.

Unalakleet; This statewide assessment was conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to coordinate, plan, and priori-tize responses to erosion throughout Alaska. The report designated Unalakleet, along with 25 other communi-ties, as priority action communities. Section 117 of the 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act has initiated construction projects at Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet.
There have been two erosion projects completed since 2004 in Unalakleet. These projects, totaling $1.8 million, involved protecting roadways from erosion damage. At the time of this report, Unalakleet was in the preliminary stage of a $5 million erosion protection project funded by a legislative grant.
The Corps has proposed a revetment for a large portion of the frontage, but residential structures are still threatened and this report estimates that damage is expected to occur within 10 years. The designed revetment is a 1,500-foot rock structure to be emplaced over the existing gabion seawall and is projected to cost $28 million. With the repeal of Section 117, the funding for this project is uncertain.

The fact sheet mentions the Corps was asked, at a public meeting in the community, to evaluate protection measures for First Bend. The fact sheet states that the current intake structure for the water supply could be relocated “at a substantial savings compared with structurally protecting the potential breach area” (p. 8).
The fact sheet ends by clarifying that the recommendations could be modified at higher levels and that a feasi-bility study would need to be conducted.

Clark's Point Ekuk; Clark’s Point is identified as one of 31 Alaska Native Villages imminently threatened by flooding and erosion.

Deering; This report recognizes Deering as one of 31 villages facing an imminent threat from flooding and erosion.

Golovin; The report has identified 31 villages as facing imminent flooding and erosion threats, including Golovin.

Hooper Bay; Hooper Bay is mentioned as one of 33 Alaska Native villages with a FEMA-approved disaster mitigation plan.

Kaktovik; Kaktovik is recognized as one of 33 communities with a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan.

Kivalina; The 2003 study identified four villages in immediate danger and in need of relocation, including Kivalina, Shaktoolik, Newtok, and Shishmaref. Newtok has made the most progress in relocation efforts. The 2009 report found 12 imminently threatened villages, including Kivalina.
Since 2003, a number of efforts have been initiated. In 2004, the Corps was given authority to conduct an erosion control project at full federal expense, but this authority was repealed in March 2009. The Corps conducted an Alaska erosion baseline study. The Corps completed the Alaska Village Technical Assistance Program Assessment in 2006. Also in 2006, the Corps completed that Relocation Planning Project Master Plan for Kivalina. The Corps estimates cost of relocation to be between $95 and $125 million. In 2007, the Governor established a Subcabinet on Climate Change, which included the Immediate Action Workgroup. An October 11, 2007, congressional field hearing in Anchorage identified the following obstacles faced by federal agencies and villages: Inability of many villages to meet criteria for federal assistance, high cost of protection and relocation projects, and the lack of scientific erosion data for sound decision making.
The report stated that Kivalina was declared a flood disaster by the state in 2006. Villagers told the GAO team that the evacuation was so dangerous that it should never be attempted again. The Corps provided funding for storm damage in a number of communities, including Kivalina. It evaluated relocation sites for Kivalina, and it provided technical assistance and 10,766 sandbags to Kivalina after flooding in 2006.
The report found that most of the 12 villages considering relocation have made limited progress, except for Newtok. It summarized findings of the 2006 Relocation Planning Project Master Plan for Kivalina and noted that the community requested a third-party assessment of the Corps’ report, which found the village-preferred site unsuitable due to flooding and erosion. Village officials told the researchers that the Corps-recommended site was too far from the coast, would disrupt subsistence activities, and make supply delivery difficult.
The report states that some officials fear erosion control projects in Shishmaref and Kivalina could slow the progress toward relocation because of a false sense of security. The seawalls are expected to protect the villages for 15 years—up to 25 years if maintained. The report found that the lack of a lead federal agency is an impediment to relocating the villages most threatened. The State of Alaska in 2008 designated the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development as the lead state coordinating agency for relocation assistance. A $13.6 million state appropriation was made for FY09. The report summarizes grant programs available for communities facing erosion and flooding.

Kotlik; This report recognizes Kotlik as one of 31 villages facing an imminent threat from flooding and erosion, and as one of 33 villages with a FEMA-approved disaster mitigation plan.

Kwigillingok; Kwigillingok was recognized as one of 31 villages imminently threatened by erosion and flooding.

Nunam Iqua; Nunam Iqua is mentioned as one of 33 Alaska Native villages with a FEMA-approved disaster mitigation plan.

Point Lay; This report recognizes Point Lay as one of 33 villages with a FEMA-approved hazards mitigation plan.

Saint Michael; The report has identified 31 villages as facing imminent flooding and erosion threats, including Saint Michael.

Selawik; This report recognizes Selawik as one of 31 villages facing an imminent threat from flooding and erosion.

Shaktoolik; This report updates a December 2003 report. The report recommends Congress consider: (1) Directing the Corps to conduct a flooding assessment in Alaska, (2) amending legislation to allow 64 additional villages to be eligible for grants under the Housing and Community Development Act, and (3) designating a lead federal agency to work with a lead state agency to coordinate relocation efforts. The report found that most of the 12 villages considering relocation have made limited progress, except for Newtok.
The 2009 report added Shaktoolik to the 2003 list of villages in immediate danger (Kivalina, Shishmaref, Newtok, and Koyukuk). It found that Kivalina, Shaktoolik, and Shishmaref would likely need to be relocated concurrently.
The document reports that Shaktoolik officials have located a potential site near Christmas Mountain, about 8.5 miles northeast of the current community. It states that this site would start as an evacuation destination, and that the feasibility of constructing an evacuation road to the site is being investigated.
Since 2003, a number of efforts have been initiated. In 2004, the Corps was given authority to initiate an erosion control project at full federal expense, but this authority was repealed in March 2009. The Corps conducted an Alaska erosion baseline study, and it completed the Alaska Village Technical Assistance Program Assessment in 2006. An October 11, 2007, congressional field hearing in Anchorage identified the following obstacles faced by federal agencies and villages: Inability of many villages to meet criteria for federal assistance, high cost of protection and relocation projects, and the lack of scientific erosion data for sound decision making.
The report states that some officials fear erosion control projects in Shaktoolik, Shishmaref, and Kivalina could slow the progress toward relocation because of a false sense of security. The seawalls are expected to protect the villages for 15 years, and up to 25 years if maintained.
The report found that the lack of a lead federal agency is an impediment to relocating the villages most threatened. The State of Alaska in 2008 designated the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development as the lead state coordinating agency for relocation assistance. A $13.6 million state appropriation was made for FY09. The report summarizes grant programs available for communities facing erosion and flooding.

Shishmaref; This report is a follow-up to the 2003 GAO report on flooding and erosion in Alaska Native villages, and was completed to identify concerns due to climate change that have increased the urgency of federal and state efforts. The GAO developed recommendations for Congress that include:
1.A flooding assessment to augment the erosion assessment completed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.An amendment to federal legislation so that 64 more villages may be eligible for grants.
3.Designating a federal entity to oversee and coordinate village relocation efforts.
This report recognizes Shishmaref as one of 31 villages facing imminent threats from flooding and erosion. Shishmaref was declared a state flood disaster area in 2004 and 2005. The 2005 event forced villagers living on the coastline to seek shelter at the center of the village, with the eventual relocation of their homes after the storm season. A new community location has been chosen at the Tin Creek site; relocation is estimated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to cost $100–200 million.

Teller; This report recognizes Teller as one of 31 villages facing imminent threats from flooding and erosion. Teller was included as one of the villages in this report based on conversations with Kawerak, Inc., and the Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority. Teller was declared a sea storm disaster area in 2004. Current mitigation of flooding and erosion issues involves building new homes at a higher elevation about 2 miles from the current community site.

Unalakleet; The report identified 31 villages as facing imminent flooding and erosion threats, including Unalakleet. The village was declared a state flood disaster area in 2003 and 2005. “Villagers told the GAO that the 2005 storm was the most damaging, causing severe erosion to the protective seawall and flooding in the village.” The Corps is in the construction stages of shoreline protection at Kivalina, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet. State contractors are helping villages to produce hazard assessments and mitigation plans, allowing them to qualify for FEMA hazard relief funds. These plans, training, and drills are scheduled for completion by the end of 2009.
Unalakleet has rights to land on a nearby hillside and access via an evacuation road. An estimated $8.8 million would be required to develop a subdivision in this region that would accommodate 300 homes. The funding, however, is not in place and without infrastructure there is little incentive for people to relocate. “The Corps, ADOT&PF, and Kawerak are each planning projects to reinforce an existing seawall and provide new protec¬tion to vulnerable areas of shoreline.”

1.Land expansion and site control.
2.Evacuation route/gravel site upgrade.
3.Erosion control.
4.Multi-purpose building.
5.New housing development.
6.Bulk fuel tank farm.
7.Environment–subsistence–wildlife conservation.
8.Water system upgrade.
9.Shaktoolik boat harbor.
10.Community roads upgrade.
The community vision is to use cultural values and natural resources to augment future growth and welfare. Three goals have been established to reach this vision:
1.Ensure financial stability and employment by building infrastructure for community growth.
2.Raise the standard of living by expanding community services, education, and culturally appropriate healthy lifestyles.
3.Preserve the culture by developing natural resources while protecting and enhancing the environment.

•Entrances: The northern channel near the Kivalina River has migrated about 625 feet to the south. The south lagoon was not connected to the sea in either 1952 or 2003.
•Wulik River: The south channel of the Wulik River has remained unchanged between the two periods.

Clark's Point Ekuk; Clark’s Point was recognized as one of the 184 Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion.

Deering; Deering was recognized as one of the 31 Alaska Native Villages facing an imminent threat from flooding and erosion.

Gambell; Gambell was recognized as one of the 184 Alaska Native villages facing imminent flooding and erosion threats.

Golovin; Golovin is recognized as one of 184 Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion.

Hooper Bay; Hooper Bay was recognized as one of the 184 Alaska Native Villages affected by flooding and erosion.

Kaktovik; Kaktovik is identified as one of five villages conducting flooding and erosion studies or improving infrastructure, that aren’t planning to relocate. The airport runway at Kaktovik, which is located 1–2 feet above MSL, is subject to annual flooding. The FAA has begun preparation for an Airport Master Plan in order to respond to this issue.

Kivalina; Kivalina was recognized as one of the 31 Alaska Native villages facing an imminent threat from flooding and erosion.

Kotlik; Kotlik was recognized as one of the 184 Alaska Native Villages facing threats from flooding and erosion.

Kwigillingok; Kwigillingok was recognized as one of the 184 Alaska Native Villages affected by flooding and erosion.

Point Lay; Point Lay is identified as one of 184 Alaska Native Villages affected by flooding and erosion.

Quinhagak; Quinhagak was recognized as one of the 184 Alaska Native Villages affected by flooding and erosion.

Saint Michael; Saint Michael was recognized as one of the 184 Alaska Native Villages facing imminent flooding and erosion threats.

Scammon Bay; Scammon Bay is identified as one of 184 Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion.

Selawik; Selawik was recognized as one of the 184 Alaska Native Villages facing an imminent threat from flooding and erosion.

Shaktoolik; Shaktoolik was recognized as one of the 184 Alaska Native Villages facing imminent flooding and erosion threats.

Shishmaref; Shishmaref was one of four communities discussed as an example of a community in imminent danger due to flooding and erosion and considering relocation. The average erosion rates in Shishmaref are reported as 20–50 feet per year, and in October 1997, a storm was responsible for 125 feet of erosion. The community of Shishmaref voted to relocate in 1973, and is still making plans to do so.

Teller; Teller is identified as one of 184 Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion.

Unalakleet; The recommendations provide alternatives to current actions taken during flooding and erosion responses by including federal agencies and the Denali Commission. The adoption of policies by the Denali Commission would guide investments in infrastructure for Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion. Unala-kleet was one of the nine villages thoroughly reviewed.
Unalakleet is identified as having a long history of flooding, dating back to the 1940s. The seawall that is in place at Unalakleet was funded fully by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) because local and state funding could not be procured. $400,000 from Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation and $400,000 from the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities was raised by Unalakleet to cost-share a feasibility study through the Army Corps of Engineers. The feasibility study addresses a navigational access problem at the harbor caused by accretion of eroded material at the harbor entrance in the form of six sandbars. Unalakleet was mentioned to be a leader in negotiating with federal agencies about cost-share requirements.

•Build a bridge across Singauk Entrance for development along the coast.
•Move to a new location: Imnaaqquaq, Sivutchiaq, Ikpikrauq, Sivu, Kirjiktuuraq, Ushaq, Igrugaivik, or Kuugruaq (sites chosen for consideration at a community meeting).
The project team visited each of the eight sites to complete a visual reconnaissance, evaluate soil and topography, and for two of the sites, take water samples. The study recommended a new community site include at least 60 acres to allow for expansion. The sites were evaluated against 36 weighted criteria. Kuugruaq received the highest score, but during a 1993 flood, half the site was flooded. A Native allotment presented land ownership problems at the site and access to a gravel site. Igrugaivik received the second highest ranking.
It was decided that land at the existing site would be kept in current ownership, but some reclamation of the site would be necessary. The sewage disposal site, dump site, and fuel storage areas would need further evaluation before abandonment. The report recommended the dump site be covered with soil after confirming no hazardous materials are present.
A review of aerial photos back to 1952 “does not show conclusive proof that erosion is occurring on the Chukchi Sea side of the island. The beach and the southeast end of the island at the Singauk Entrance are such dynamic systems that at times it is eroding and, at other times, it is adding” (p.3). The study showed, however, that there has been substantial erosion along the lagoon side of the island near Singauk Entrance.