a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2003 ALASKA NATIVE 

VILLAGES

Most Are Affected by 

Flooding and Erosion, 

but Few Qualify for 

Federal Assistance

GAO-04-142
Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, of Alaska Native 

villages to some extent. While many of the problems are long-standing, 

various studies indicate that coastal villages are becoming more susceptible 

to flooding and erosion due in part to rising temperatures. 

The Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

administer key programs for constructing flooding and erosion control 

projects. However, small and remote Alaska Native villages often fail to 

qualify for assistance under these programs—largely because of agency 

requirements that the expected costs of the project not exceed its benefits. 

Even villages that do meet the cost/benefit criteria may still not receive 

assistance if they cannot meet the cost-share requirement for the project. 

Of the nine villages we were directed to review, four—Kivalina, Koyukuk, 

Newtok, and Shishmaref—are in imminent danger from flooding and erosion 

and are planning to relocate, while the remaining five are in various stages of 

responding to these problems. Costs for relocating are expected to be high. 

For example, the cost estimates for relocating Kivalina range from $100 

million to over $400 million. Relocation is a daunting process that may take 

several years to accomplish. During that process, federal agencies must 

make wise investment decisions, yet GAO found instances where federal 

agencies invested in infrastructure at the villages’ existing sites without 

knowledge of their plans to relocate. 

GAO, federal and state officials, and village representatives identified some 

alternatives that could increase service delivery for Alaska Native villages, 

although many important factors must first be considered: 

• Expand the role of the Denali Commission. 

• Direct federal agencies to consider social and environmental factors in 

their cost/benefit analyses. 

• Waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for these projects. 

• Authorize the “bundling” of funds from various federal agencies. 

Bluff Erosion at Shishmaref 

Approximately 6,600 miles of 

Alaska’s coastline and many of the 

low-lying areas along the state’s 

rivers are subject to severe 

flooding and erosion. Most of 

Alaska’s Native villages are located 

on the coast or on riverbanks. In 

addition to the many federal and 

Alaska state agencies that respond 

to flooding and erosion, Congress 

established the Denali Commission 

in 1998 to, among other things, 

provide economic development 

services and to meet infrastructure 

needs in rural Alaska communities. 

Congress directed GAO to study 

Alaska Native villages affected by 

flooding and erosion and to 1) 

determine the extent to which 

these villages are affected, 2) 

identify federal and state flooding 

and erosion programs, 3) 

determine the current status of 

efforts to respond to flooding and 

erosion in nine villages, and 4) 

identify alternatives that Congress 

may wish to consider when 

providing assistance for flooding 

and erosion. 

GAO presents to Congress a matter 

for consideration that directs 

federal agencies and the Denali 

Commission to assess the 

feasibility of alternatives for 

responding to flooding and erosion. 

In addition, GAO recommends that 

the Denali Commission adopt a 

policy to guide future 

infrastructure investments in 

Alaska Native villages affected by 

flooding and erosion. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-142.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Anu Mittal at 

(202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-142, a report to the 

Senate and House Committees on 

Appropriations 

December 2003

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES 

Most Are Affected by Flooding and 

Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal 

Assistance 
Page i GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 6

Most Alaska Native Villages Are Affected to Some Extent by 

Flooding and Erosion 13

Federal Flooding and Erosion Programs Provide Limited Assistance 

to Alaska Native Villages; Some State Programs Are Also

Available 19

Four Villages in Imminent Danger Are Planning to Relocate, and the 

Remaining Five Villages Are Taking Other Actions 27

Alternatives for Addressing Barriers That Villages Face in Obtaining 

Federal Services 41

Conclusion 45

Recommendations for Executive Action 46

Matter for Congressional Consideration 46

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 46

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology 49

Appendix II: ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofit 

Arms 51

Appendix III: List of 184 Affected Alaska Native Villages by ANCSA 

Region 52

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Army 58

GAO’s Comments 68

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior 69

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 71

Appendix VII: Comments from the Denali Commission 72

GAO’s Comments 74

Appendix VIII: Comments from the State of Alaska 75

GAO’s Comments 81

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 82

GAO Contacts 82

Acknowledgments 82
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Tables Table 1: Number of ANCSA-Eligible Villages Affected by Flooding 

and Erosion, by Region 15

Table 2: Authorities that Address Flooding and Erosion under the 

Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program 19

Table 3: NRCS Programs That Respond to Flooding and Erosion 20

Table 4: Other Key Federal Programs That Can Address Problems 

Caused by Flooding and Erosion 21

Table 5: Nine Alaska Native Villages’ Efforts to Address Flooding 

and Erosion 29

Table 6: List of ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and 

Nonprofit Arms 51

Figures Figure 1: Map of Alaska Showing Major Rivers, Oceans, and 

Mountain Ranges 7

Figure 2: Sea Erosion at Shishmaref (June 2003) 8

Figure 3: Subsistence Harvesting of a Seal in Kivalina (June 

2003) 10

Figure 4: Locations of 184 Native Villages Affected by Flooding and 

Erosion 14

Figure 5: Aerial View of Flooding in Aniak (c. 2002) 16

Figure 6: NRCS Seawall Erosion Protection Project at Unalakleet 

(c. 2000) 25

Figure 7: Map of Alaska with Nine Villages Highlighted 28

Figure 8: Aerial view of Kivalina (c. 1999) 31

Figure 9: Bluff Erosion and Permafrost Melting in Shishmaref

(c. 2002) 33

Figure 10: Aerial View of Ice Jam and Flooding at Koyukuk, Near the 

Confluence of the Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers

(c. 2001) 36

Figure 11: Airport Runway at the Native Village of Point Hope

(c. 2001) 38
Contents

Page iii GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Abbreviations

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GAO General Accounting Office

NAHASDA Native American Housing Assistance Self-Determination

Act of 1996

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

WRDA Water Resources Development Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Contents

Page iv GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages
Page 1 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

December 12, 2003 Letr

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Chairman

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young

Chairman

The Honorable David R. Obey 

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Alaska’s shoreline is subject to periodic, yet severe, erosion. During these 

episodes, over 100 feet of land can be lost in a single storm. The state also 

has thousands of miles of riverbanks that are prone to annual flooding 

during the spring thaw. These shorelines and riverbanks serve as home to 

over 200 Native villages whose inhabitants hunt and fish for subsistence. 

Coastal and river flooding and erosion cause millions of dollars of property 

damage in Alaska Native villages, damaging or destroying homes, public 

buildings, and airport runways. Because Alaska Native villages are often in 

remote areas not accessible by roads, village airport runways are lifelines 

for many villages, and any threat to the runways either from flooding or 

erosion may be a threat to the villages’ survival. Flooding and erosion can 

also destroy meat drying racks and damage food cellars, threatening the 

winter food supply and the traditional subsistence lifestyle of Alaska 

Natives. 

Since 1977, the state, and in some cases the federal government, has 

responded to more than 190 disaster emergencies in Alaska, many in 

response to these problems. Several federal and state agencies are directly 

or indirectly involved in providing assistance for flooding and erosion in 

Alaska. In addition, the Denali Commission, created by Congress in 1998, 

while not directly responsible for responding to flooding and erosion, is 

charged with addressing crucial needs of rural Alaska communities,
Page 2 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

particularly isolated Alaska Native villages.1 The commission is composed 

of a federal and a state cochair and representatives from local agencies, as 

well as Alaska Native, public, and private entities. For fiscal year 2003, the 

commission was provided with almost $99 million in federal funds to carry 

out its mission. The purpose of the commission is to (1) deliver the services 

of the federal government in the most cost-effective manner practicable; 

(2) provide job training and other economic development services in rural 

communities; and (3) promote rural development and provide 

infrastructure such as water, sewer, and communication systems. 

The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the military construction 

appropriation bill directed GAO to study Alaska Native villages affected by 

flooding and erosion.2

 In response to this direction and subsequent 

discussions with your staff, we (1) determined the extent to which Alaska 

Native villages are affected by flooding and erosion; (2) identified federal 

and Alaska state programs that provide assistance for flooding and erosion 

and assessed the extent to which federal assistance has been provided to 

Alaska Native villages; (3) determined the status of efforts, including cost 

estimates, to respond to flooding and erosion in select villages seriously 

affected by flooding and erosion; and (4) identified alternatives that 

Congress may wish to consider when providing assistance for flooding and 

erosion of Alaska Native villages. 

To address the objectives for this report, we reviewed federal and state 

flooding and erosion studies and project documents and interviewed 

federal and state agency officials and representatives from each of the nine 

villages. We also visited four of the nine villages. While the committee 

directed us to include at least six villages in our study—Barrow, Bethel, 

Kaktovik, Kivalina, Point Hope, and Unalakleet—we added three more—

Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref—based on discussions with 

congressional staff and with federal and Alaska state officials familiar with 

flooding and erosion problems. Appendix I provides further details about 

the scope and methodology of our review. 

Results in Brief According to federal and state officials in Alaska, 184 out of 213, or 86.4 

percent of Alaska Native villages experience some level of flooding and 

1

Pub. L. No. 105-277, tit. III, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

2

H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-731, at 15 (2002).
Page 3 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

erosion, but it is difficult to assess the severity of the problem because 

quantifiable data are not available for remote locations. Native villages on 

the coast or along rivers are subject to both annual and episodic flooding 

and erosion. Various studies and reports indicate that coastal villages in 

Alaska are becoming more susceptible to flooding and erosion in part 

because rising temperatures cause protective shore ice to form later in the 

year, leaving the villages vulnerable to fall storms. For example, the barrier 

island village of Shishmaref, which is less than 1,320 feet wide, lost 125 feet 

of beach to erosion during an October 1997 storm. In addition, villages in 

low-lying areas along riverbanks or in river deltas are susceptible to 

flooding and erosion caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, rising sea 

levels, and heavy rainfall. For many villages, ice jams that form in the 

Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers during the spring ice breakup cause the most 

frequent and severe floods by creating a buildup of water behind the jam. 

The resulting accumulation of water can flood entire villages. While 

flooding and erosion affect most Alaska Native villages, federal and state 

officials noted that Alaska has significant data gaps because of a lack of 

monitoring equipment in remote locations. This lack of baseline data 

makes it difficult to assess the severity of the problem. 

The Continuing Authorities Program, administered by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, and the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, 

administered by the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, are the principal federal programs that provide 

assistance for the prevention or control of flooding and erosion. However, 

small and remote Alaska Native villages often fail to qualify for assistance 

under these programs because they do not meet program criteria. For 

example, according to the Corps’ guidelines for evaluating water resource 

projects, the Corps generally cannot undertake a project when the 

economic costs exceed the expected benefits. With few exceptions, Alaska 

Native villages’ requests for assistance under this program are denied 

because the project costs usually outweigh expected benefits. Even 

villages that meet the Corps’ cost/benefit criteria may still fail to qualify if 

they cannot meet cost-share requirements for the project. The Department 

of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Watershed 

Protection and Flood Prevention Program also requires a cost/benefit 

analysis similar to that of the Corps. As a result, few Alaska Native villages 

qualify for assistance under this program. However, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service has other programs that have provided limited 

assistance to these villages—in part because these programs consider 

additional social and environmental factors in developing their cost/benefit 

analysis. Besides programs administered by the Corps of Engineers and the 
Page 4 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Natural Resources Conservation Service, there are several other federal 

and state programs that offer limited assistance to Alaska Native villages in 

responding to flooding and erosion. For example, the Federal Aviation 

Administration can assist with rebuilding or repairing airstrips that are 

affected by flooding and erosion, and the Alaska Department of 

Community and Economic Development provides coordination and 

technical assistance to communities to help reduce losses and damage 

from flooding and erosion. However, these programs are generally not 

prevention programs, but are available to assist communities in preparing 

for or responding to the consequences of flooding and erosion. 

Of the nine villages we were directed to review, four—Kivalina, Koyukuk, 

Newtok, and Shishmaref—are in imminent danger from flooding and 

erosion and are making plans to relocate; the remaining villages are taking 

other actions. Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref are working with relevant 

federal agencies to determine the suitability of possible relocation sites, 

while Koyukuk is in the early stages of planning for relocation. Because of 

the high cost of materials and transportation in remote parts of Alaska, the 

cost of relocation for these villages is expected to be high. For example, the 

Corps estimates that the cost to relocate Kivalina, which has a population 

of about 385, could range from $100 million for design and construction of 

infrastructure, including a gravel pad, at one site and up to $400 million for 

just the cost of building a gravel pad at another site. Cost estimates for 

relocating the other three villages are not yet available. The five villages not 

planning to relocate—Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Point Hope, and 

Unalakleet—are in various stages of responding to their flooding and 

erosion problems. For example, two of these villages, Kaktovik and Point 

Hope, are studying ways to prevent flooding of specific infrastructure, such 

as the airport runway. In addition, Bethel, a regional hub in southwest 

Alaska with a population of about 5,471, has a project under way to stop 

erosion of its riverbank. The project involves repairing an existing seawall 

and extending it 1,200 feet to protect the entrance to the village’s small boat 

harbor, at an initial cost estimate of more than $4.7 million and average 

annual costs of $374,000. 

During our review of the nine villages, we found instances where federal 

agencies invested in infrastructure projects without knowledge of the 

villages’ plans to relocate. For example, the Denali Commission and the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development were unaware of 

Newtok’s relocation plans when they decided to jointly fund a new health 

clinic in the village for $1.1 million (using fiscal year 2002 and 2003 funds). 

While we recognize that development and maintenance of critical 
Page 5 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

infrastructure, such as health clinics and runways, are necessary as villages 

find ways to respond to flooding and erosion, we question whether limited 

federal funds for these projects are being expended in the most effective 

and efficient manner. Had the agencies known of the village’s relocation 

plans they could have explored other, potentially less costly, options for 

meeting the village’s needs, until it is able to relocate. The Denali 

Commission has recognized this issue as a concern and is working on a 

policy to ensure that investments are made in a conscientious and 

sustainable manner for villages threatened by flooding and erosion. 

Successful implementation of such a policy will depend in part on its 

adoption by individual federal agencies that also fund infrastructure 

development in Alaska Native villages. We are recommending that the 

Denali Commission adopt a policy that will guide future infrastructure 

investments and project designs in villages affected by flooding and 

erosion. 

The unique circumstances of Alaska Native villages and their inability to 

qualify for assistance under a variety of federal flooding and erosion 

programs may require special measures to ensure that they receive certain 

needed services. Federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska Native 

village representatives that we spoke with identified several alternatives 

that could help mitigate the barriers that villages face in obtaining federal 

services. The alternatives discussed below may be considered individually 

or in combination. However, adopting some of these alternatives will 

require consideration of a number of important factors including the 

potential to set a precedent for other communities and programs as well as 

resulting budgetary implications. 

• Expand the role of the Denali Commission to include responsibility for 

managing a flooding and erosion assistance program, which it currently 

does not have. 

• Direct the Corps and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to 

consider social and environmental factors in their cost benefit analyses 

for projects requested by Alaska Native villages.

• Waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for flooding and erosion 

programs for Alaska Native villages.

In addition, as a fourth alternative, GAO identified the bundling of funds 

from various agencies to address flooding and erosion problems in Alaska 

Native villages. While we did not determine the cost or the national policy 
Page 6 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

implications associated with any of these alternatives, these costs and 

implications are important considerations in determining the appropriate 

level of federal services that should be available to respond to flooding and 

erosion in Alaska Native villages. Consequently, we are providing Congress 

with a matter for consideration that it direct relevant executive agencies 

and the Denali Commission to assess the feasibility of each of the 

alternatives, as appropriate. In addition, the Denali Commission may want 

to comment on the implications of expanding its role. 

Background Alaska encompasses an area of about 365 million acres, more than the 

combined area of the next three largest states—Texas, California, and 

Montana. The state is bound on three sides by water, and its coastline, 

which stretches about 6,600 miles (excluding island shorelines, bays and 

fjords) and accounts for more than half of the entire U.S. coastline, varies 

from rocky shores, sandy beaches, and high cliffs to river deltas, mud flats, 

and barrier islands. The coastline constantly changes due to wave action, 

ocean currents, storms, and river deposits and is subject to periodic, yet 

severe, erosion. Alaska also has more than 12,000 rivers, including three of 

the ten largest in the country—the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Copper Rivers.3

 

(See fig. 1.) While these and other rivers provide food, transportation, and 

recreation for people, as well as habitat for fish and wildlife, their waters 

also shape the landscape. In particular, ice jams on rivers and flooding of 

riverbanks during spring breakup change the contour of valleys, wetlands, 

and human settlements. 

3

The size is determined by the average rate of flow (discharge at the mouth).
Page 7 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Figure 1: Map of Alaska Showing Major Rivers, Oceans, and Mountain Ranges

Permafrost (permanently frozen subsoil) is found over approximately 80 

percent of Alaska. It is deepest and most extensive on the Arctic Coastal 

Plain and decreases in depth, eventually becoming discontinuous further 

south. In northern Alaska, where the permafrost is virtually everywhere, 

most buildings are elevated to minimize the amount of heat transferred to 

the ground to avoid melting the permafrost. In northern barrier island 

communities, the permafrost literally helps hold the island together. 

However, rising temperatures in recent years have led to widespread 

thawing of the permafrost, causing serious damage. As permafrost melts, 

buildings and runways sink, bulk fuel tank areas are threatened, and 

slumping and erosion of land ensue. (See fig. 2.) 
Page 8 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Figure 2: Sea Erosion at Shishmaref (June 2003)

Rising temperatures have also affected the thickness, extent, and duration 

of sea ice that forms along the western and northern coasts. The loss of sea 

ice leaves coasts more vulnerable to waves, storm surges, and erosion. 

When combined with the thawing of permafrost along the coast, this loss of 

sea ice poses a serious threat to coastal Alaska Native villages. 

Furthermore, loss of sea ice alters the habitat and accessibility of many of 

the marine mammals that Alaska Natives depend upon for subsistence. As 

the ice melts or moves away early, walruses, seals, and polar bears move 

with it, taking them too far away to be hunted.

Source: GAO.
Page 9 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Although Alaska is by far the largest state, it is one of the least populated, 

with about 630,000 people—of which 19 percent, or about 120,000, are 

Alaska Natives.4

 Over half of the state’s population is concentrated in the 

Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, and the Matanuska-Susitna area in south 

central Alaska. Many Alaska Natives, however, live in places long inhabited 

by their ancestors in rural areas in western, northern, and interior Alaska. 

Alaskan Natives are generally divided into six major groupings: Unangan 

(Aleuts), Alutiiq (Pacific Eskimos), Iñupiat (Northern Eskimos), Yup’ik 

(Bering Sea Eskimos), Athabascan (Interior Indians), and Tlingit and Haida 

(Southeast Coastal Indians).5

 For generations, these Alaska Natives have 

used the surrounding waters and land to hunt, fish, and gather wild plants 

for food. (See fig. 3.) These subsistence activities are intricately woven 

into the fabric of their lives. Subsistence activities require a complex 

network of social relationships within the Native community. For example, 

there is a division of labor among those who harvest, those who prepare, 

and those who distribute the food. These activities establish and promote 

the basic values of Alaska Native culture—generosity, respect for the 

knowledge and guidance of elders, self-esteem for the successful hunter(s), 

and community cooperation—and they form the foundation for continuity 

between generations. As their environment changes along with the climate, 

however, Alaska Natives have few adaptive strategies, and their traditional 

way of life is becoming increasingly vulnerable. 

4

The U.S. Census Bureau defines this category as American Indian and Alaska Native.

5

Other Alaska Native groups include Siberian Yupik of St. Lawrence Island and Tsimshian of 

southeast Alaska. 
Page 10 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Figure 3: Subsistence Harvesting of a Seal in Kivalina (June 2003)

A typical coastal or river Native village has a population of a couple of 

hundred people and generally contains only basic infrastructure—homes, a 

school, a village store, a health clinic, a washateria, a church, city or tribal 

offices, and a post office. The school is usually the largest building in the 

community. Since many villages do not have running water, the washateria 

plays an important role; it not only contains laundry facilities, but also 

shower and toilet facilities—which residents must pay a fee to use. Many 

village homes do not have sanitation facilities and rely on honey buckets—

5-gallon buckets that serve as a toilet—or a flush and haul system.6

 Most of 

the villages that are not accessible by roads contain an airport runway that 

provides the only year-round access to the community. The runways are 

generally adjacent to the village or a short distance away. Other 

infrastructure in a village may consist of a bulk fuel tank farm, a power 

plant, a water treatment facility, a water tank, meat drying racks, a village 

6

A flush and haul system generally consists of individual storage tanks that provide water to 

flush toilets, and the sewage is then stored in a separate tank whose contents are 

transported to a sewage lagoon.

Source: GAO.
Page 11 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

sewage lagoon or dump site, and, for some villages, commercial structures 

such as tanneries. Most river villages also have a barge landing area where 

goods are delivered to the community during the ice-free period. 

Multiple Entities Make Up 

the Alaska Native Village 

Governing Structure

The government structure of Native villages may contain several distinct 

entities that perform administrative tasks, including making decisions 

about how to address flooding and erosion. Alaska’s constitution and state 

laws allow for several types of regional and local government units, such as 

boroughs—units of government that are similar to the counties found in 

many other states. About a third of Alaska is made up of 16 organized 

boroughs. The remaining two-thirds of the state is sparsely populated land 

that is considered a single “unorganized borough.” At the village level, a 

federally recognized tribal government may coexist with a city government, 

which may also be under a borough government. Alaska has more than 200 

federally recognized tribal governments. 

In addition to these various government entities, federal agencies that 

provide assistance for flooding and erosion also work with local and 

regional Native corporations. Federal law directed the establishment of 

these corporations under the laws of the state of Alaska, and the 

corporations are organized as for-profit entities that also have nonprofit 

arms. In December 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA), which directed the establishment of 12 for-profit 

regional corporations—one for each geographic region comprised of 

Natives having a common heritage and sharing common interests—and 

over 200 village corporations.7

 These corporations would become the 

vehicle for distributing land and monetary benefits to Alaska Natives to 

provide a fair and just settlement of aboriginal land claims in Alaska. The 

act permitted the conveyance of about 44 million acres of land to Alaska 

Native corporations, along with cash payments of almost $1 billion.8

 (See 

appendix II for a list of the regional corporations and the corresponding 

nonprofit arms that provide social services to the villages and also help 

them address problems, including flooding and erosion.)

7

Pub. L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971). In addition, a thirteenth corporation was established 

later for nonresident Alaska Natives.

8

A thirteenth regional corporation was later established for nonresident Alaska Natives. This 

corporation participated only in ANCSA’s cash settlement and did not receive any ANCSA 

lands or other ANCSA benefits. 
Page 12 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Several Federal and State 

Agencies Are Responsible 

for Responding to Flooding 

and Erosion

Federal, state, and local government agencies share responsibility for 

controlling and responding to flooding and erosion. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers has responsibility for planning and constructing streambank and 

shoreline erosion protection and flood control structures under a specific 

set of requirements.9

 The Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for protecting small 

watersheds. A number of other federal agencies, such as the Departments 

of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, also have 

responsibility for protecting certain infrastructure from flooding and 

erosion. On the state side, the Division of Emergency Services responds to 

state disaster declarations dealing with flooding and erosion when local 

communities request assistance. The Alaska Department of Community 

and Economic Development helps communities reduce losses and damage 

from flooding and erosion. The Alaska Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities funds work to protect runways from erosion. Local 

governments such as the North Slope Borough have also funded erosion 

control and flood protection projects. 

In addition to government agencies, the Denali Commission, created by 

Congress in 1998, while not directly responsible for responding to flooding 

and erosion, is charged with addressing crucial needs of rural Alaska 

communities, particularly isolated Alaska Native villages. The membership 

of the commission consists of federal and state cochairs and a five-member 

panel from statewide organization presidents. The mission of the 

commission is to partner with tribal, federal, state, and local governments 

to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government services; to 

build and ensure the operation and maintenance of Alaska’s basic 

infrastructure; and to develop a well-trained labor force. The commission 

funds infrastructure projects throughout the state, ranging from health 

clinics to bulk fuel tanks. The commission has also funded the construction 

of new infrastructure when flooding and erosion threatened the existing 

structures.

9

The Corps may study and construct erosion protection and flood control structures, 

provided it receives authority and appropriations from Congress to do so. In addition to 

building structures, the Corps may also consider and implement non-structural and 

relocation alternatives.
Page 13 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Most Alaska Native 

Villages Are Affected to 

Some Extent by 

Flooding and Erosion

According to federal and Alaska state officials that we consulted, most of 

the 213 Alaska Native villages are subject to flooding and erosion. However, 

it is difficult to assess the severity of the problem because quantifiable data 

on flooding and erosion are not available for remote locations. Villages 

located on the coast or along rivers are subject to both annual and episodic 

flooding and erosion. In addition, river villages are also susceptible to 

flooding and erosion caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, rising sea 

levels, and heavy rainfall. 

Coastal or River Flooding 

and Erosion Affects 86 

Percent of Alaska Native 

Villages

Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86.4 percent, of Alaska 

Native villages to some extent, according to studies and information 

provided to us by federal and Alaska state officials. The 184 affected 

villages consist of coastal and river villages throughout the state. Figure 4 

shows the location of these villages, and table 1 shows the number of 

affected villages by ANCSA region. All 184 Native villages affected by 

flooding and erosion are listed in appendix III. 
Page 14 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Figure 4: Locations of 184 Native Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion 
Page 15 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Table 1: Number of ANCSA-Eligible Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion, by 

Region

Source: GAO.

a

There are seven additional ANCSA-eligible villages in the Koniag region, but they do not have 

corresponding Alaska Native entities recognized by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian 

Affairs.

Villages on the coast are affected by flooding and erosion from the sea. For 

example, when these villages are not protected by sea ice, they are at risk 

of flooding and erosion from storm surges. Lack of sea ice also increases 

the distance over water, which can generate increased waves and storm 

surges. In the case of Kivalina, the community has experienced erosion 

from sea storms, particularly in late summer or fall. These storms can 

result in a sea level rise of 10 feet or more, and when combined with high 

tide, the storm surge becomes even greater and can be accompanied by 

waves that contain ice. In addition to coastal villages, communities in lowlying areas along riverbanks or in river deltas are susceptible to flooding 

and erosion caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, rising sea levels 

and heavy rainfall. For example, the village of Aniak, on the Kuskokwim 

River in southwestern Alaska, experiences flooding every 3 or 4 years. Ice 

jams that form on the river during the spring breakup cause the most 

frequent and severe floods in Aniak, sometimes accompanied by 

streambank erosion from the ice flow. (See fig. 5.) 

Region

Alaska Native 

villages

Alaska Native villages 

affected by flooding 

and erosion

Ahtna 8 4

Aleut 13 13

Arctic Slope 8 6

Bering Straits 20 18

Bristol Bay 29 27

Calista 56 49

Chugach 5 4

Cook Inlet Region 7 3

Doyon 37 33

Koniag 9a 6

NANA 11 11

Sealaska 10 10

Total 213 184
Page 16 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Figure 5: Aerial View of Flooding in Aniak (c. 2002)

Flooding and erosion are long-standing problems in Alaska. For example, 

these problems have been well documented in Bethel, Unalakleet, and 

Shishmaref dating back to the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, respectively. The 

state has made several efforts to identify communities affected by flooding 

and erosion over the past 30 years. In 1982, a state contractor developed a 

list of Alaska communities affected by flooding and erosion.10 This list 

identified 169 of the 213 Alaska Native villages, virtually the same villages 

identified by federal and state officials that we consulted in 2003. In 

addition, the state appointed an Erosion Control Task Force in 1983 to 

Source: Alaska Division of Emergency Services.

10This report was prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, 

the predecessor of the Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development.
Page 17 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

investigate and inventory potential erosion problems and to prioritize 

erosion sites by severity and need. In its January 1984 final report, the task 

force identified a total of 30 priority communities with erosion problems. 

Of these 30 communities, 28 are Alaska Native villages. Federal and state 

officials that we spoke with in 2003 also identified almost all of the Native 

communities in the 1984 report as villages needing assistance.

While flooding and erosion is a long-standing problem that has been 

documented in Alaska for decades, various studies and reports indicate 

that coastal villages in Alaska are becoming more susceptible. This 

increasing susceptibility is due in part to rising temperatures that cause 

protective shore ice to form later in the year, leaving the villages vulnerable 

to storms. According to the Alaska Climate Research Center, mean annual 

temperatures have risen for the period from 1971 to 2000, although changes 

varied from one climate zone to another and were dependent on the 

temperature station selected. For example, Barrow experienced an average 

temperature increase of 4.16 degrees Fahrenheit for the 30-year period 

from 1971 to 2000, while Bethel experienced an increase of 3.08 degrees 

Fahrenheit for the same time period. 

Other studies have reported extensive melting of glaciers, thawing of 

permafrost, and reduction of sea ice that may also be contributing to the 

flooding and erosion problems of coastal villages in recent years. 

According to a 1999 report for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

glaciers in the arctic and subarctic regions have generally receded, with 

decreases in ice thickness of approximately 33 feet over the last 40 years. 

In addition, according to a 1997 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, much of the arctic permafrost is close to thawing, making 

it an area that is sensitive to small changes in temperature. The 1999 report 

for the U.S. Global Change Research Program also states that both the 

extent and thickness of sea ice in the arctic have decreased substantially in 

recent decades, with thickness decreasing by more than 4 feet (from 10-

feet to 6-feet thick). The report also notes that loss of sea ice along Alaska’s 

coast has increased both coastal erosion and vulnerability to storm surges. 

With less ice, storm surges have become more severe because larger open 

water areas can generate bigger waves. 

Quantifiable Data Are Not 

Available to Fully Assess the 

Severity of the Problem

While most Alaska Native villages are affected to some extent by flooding 

and erosion, quantifiable data are not available to fully assess the severity 

of the problem. Federal and Alaska state agency officials could agree on 

which three or four villages experience the most flooding and erosion, but 
Page 18 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

they could not rank flooding and erosion in the remaining villages by high, 

medium, or low severity. These agency officials said that determining the 

extent to which villages have been affected by flooding and erosion is 

difficult because Alaska has significant data gaps. These gaps occur 

because remote locations lack monitoring equipment. The officials noted 

that about 400 to 500 gauging stations would have to be added in Alaska to 

attain the same level of gauging as in the Pacific Northwest. 

In addition, the amount and accuracy of floodplain information in Alaska 

varies widely from place to place.11 Detailed floodplain studies have been 

completed for many of the larger communities and for the more populated 

areas along some rivers. For example, the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) has published Flood Insurance Rate Maps that show 

floodplain boundaries and flood elevations for communities that 

participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. However, because 

only a handful of Alaska Native villages participate in the program, many of 

the villages have not had their 100-year floodplain identified by FEMA. In 

addition, little or no documented floodplain information exists for most of 

the smaller communities. Moreover, no consolidated record has been 

maintained of significant floods in Alaska Native villages. The Corps’ Flood 

Plain Management Services has an ongoing program to identify the 100-

year flood elevation, or the flood of record of flood-prone communities 

through data research and field investigations. 

State of Alaska officials also noted that there is a lack of standards and 

terms for measuring erosion. Erosion zone guidance and federal (or state) 

standards by which to judge erosion risks are needed. They noted that 

while national standards for designing, developing and siting for the “100-

year flood” event exists and are quantifiable and measurable, a similar 

standard for erosion, such as a distance measurement needs to be 

established. 

11Floodplain refers to the lowlands adjoining the channel of a river, stream, or watercourse, 

or ocean, lake, or other body of standing water, which have been or may be inundated by 

floodwater. The channel of a stream or watercourse is part of the floodplain.
Page 19 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Federal Flooding and 

Erosion Programs 

Provide Limited 

Assistance to Alaska 

Native Villages; Some 

State Programs Are 

Also Available

The key programs that construct projects to prevent and control flooding 

and erosion are administered by the Corps and NRCS. However, Alaska 

Native villages have difficulty qualifying for assistance under some of these 

programs—largely because of program requirements that the economic 

costs of the project not exceed its economic benefits. In addition to the 

Corps and NRCS, several other federal and state agencies have programs to 

provide assistance for specific consequences of flooding and erosion, such 

as programs to replace homes or to rebuild or repair roads and airstrips. 

Federal Programs Are 

Available to Respond to 

Problems Associated with 

Flooding and Erosion

The Continuing Authorities Program, administered by the Corps, and the 

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, administered by 

NRCS, are the principal programs available to prevent flooding and control 

erosion. Table 2 below lists and describes the five authorities under the 

Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program that address flooding and erosion, 

while table 3 identifies the main NRCS programs that provide assistance for 

flooding and erosion. 

Table 2: Authorities that Address Flooding and Erosion under the Corps’ Continuing 

Authorities Program

Source: GAO analysis of Corps program information.

In addition to the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program, other Corps 

authorities that may address problems related to flooding and erosion 

include the following:

Program authority Description

Section 14 of the Flood Control

Act of 1946

For emergency streambank and shoreline 

erosion protection for public facilities

Section 205 of the Flood Control

Act of 1948

Authorizes flood control projects

Section 208 of the Flood Control

Act of 1954

Authorizes flood control activities

Section 103 of the River and Harbor

Act of 1962

Protect shores of publicly owned property 

from hurricane and storm damage

Section 111 of the River and Harbor

Act of 1968

Mitigate shoreline erosion damage cause by 

federal navigation projects
Page 20 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

• Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, which 

provides authority for the Corps to assist states in the preparation of 

comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, and conservation 

of water and related resources of drainage basins.

• Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960, which allows the Corps’ 

Flood Plain Management Services’ Program to provide states and local 

governments technical services and planning guidance that is needed to 

support effective flood plain management.

Table 3: NRCS Programs That Respond to Flooding and Erosion

Source: GAO analysis of NRCS program information.

In addition to these programs, several other federal programs can assist 

Alaska Native villages in responding to the consequences of flooding by 

funding tasks such as moving homes, repairing roads, or rebuilding airport 

runways. Table 4 lists these programs. 

Program Description

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 

Program

Provides funding for projects that control 

erosion and prevent flooding. Limited to 

watersheds that are less than 250,000 

acres.

Emergency Watershed Protection Program Provides assistance where there is some 

imminent threat—usually from some sort of 

erosion caused by river flooding.

Conservation Technical Assistance 

Program

Provides technical assistance to 

communities and individuals to solve 

natural resource problems including 

reducing erosion, improving air and water 

quality, and maintaining or restoring 

wetlands and habitat.
Page 21 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Table 4: Other Key Federal Programs That Can Address Problems Caused by Flooding and Erosion

Source: GAO analysis of agencies’ data.

Agency/program Description

Federal Emergency Management Agency/National Flood Insurance 

Program

Makes flood insurance available to residents of communities that 

adopt and enforce minimum floodplain management requirements.

Federal Emergency Management Agency/Public Assistance 

Program

Provides supplemental federal disaster grant assistance for the 

repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly 

owned facilities and the facilities of certain nonprofit organizations.

Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA)

Provides funding through the state of Alaska for roads, pedestrian 

facilities, and snowmobile trails. FHWA monies may be available to 

assist villages with improving or repairing roads/boardwalks.

Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA)/Alaska Region Airports Division

Provides funding to improve airport infrastructure—including those 

threatened by flooding and erosion. Could fund relocation of an 

airport if necessitated by community relocation providing the airport 

meets criteria for funding—airport is in the National Plan of 

Integrated Airport System and meets FAA design standards. 

However, the villages first need to be relocated first before the new 

airport is built.

Housing and Urban Development/Community Development Block 

Grants Program

Provides grants to Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages to 

develop economic opportunities and build decent housing for low 

and moderate-income residents.

Housing and Urban Development/Native American Housing 

Assistance Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA)

Provides grants and technical assistance to Indian tribes and 

Alaska Native villages to develop affordable housing for low-income 

families. NAHASDA funds could also be used to move homes that 

are threatened by flooding and erosion.

Housing and Urban Development/Imminent Threats Grants 

Program

Provides funding to alleviate or remove imminent threats to health 

or safety—including threats posed by flooding and erosion.

Bureau of Indian Affairs/Road Maintenance Program Provides funding for maintaining and repairing roads, culverts, and 

airstrips in order to provide a foundation for economic development.

Bureau of Indian Affairs/Housing Improvement Program Provides grants and technical assistance to replace substandard 

housing, including housing that is threatened, damaged, or lost due 

to erosion or flooding.

Department of Commerce’s Economic Development 

Administration/Economic Adjustment Program

Provides assistance to protect and develop the economies of 

communities. This assistance could involve building erosion or flood 

control structures in order to protect village commercial structures, 

such as canneries.
Page 22 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Villages Have Difficulty 

Qualifying for the Corps’ 

Program

Small and remote Alaska villages often fail to qualify for assistance under 

the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program because they do not meet the 

program’s criteria. In particular, according to the Corps’ guidelines for 

evaluating water resource projects, the Corps generally cannot undertake a 

project whose costs exceed its expected benefits.12 With few exceptions, 

Alaska Native villages’ requests for the Corps’ assistance are denied 

because of the Corps’ determination that project costs outweigh the 

expected benefits. Alaska Native villages have difficulty meeting the 

cost/benefit requirement because many of these villages are not developed 

to the extent that the value of their infrastructure is high enough to equal 

the cost of a proposed erosion or flood control project. For example, the 

Alaska Native village of Kongiganak, with a population of about 360 people, 

experiences severe erosion from the Kongnignanohk River. The Corps 

decided not to fund an erosion project because the cost of the project 

exceeds the expected benefits and because many of the structures 

threatened are private property, which are not eligible for protection under 

a Section 14 Emergency Streambank Protection project. One additional 

factor that makes it difficult for Alaska Native villages to qualify for the 

Corps’ program is that the cost of construction is high in remote villages—

largely because labor, equipment, and materials have to be brought in from 

distant locations. The high cost of construction makes it even more 

difficult for villages to meet the Corps’ cost/benefit requirements. 

12The Corps’ guidelines are based on the Flood Control Act of 1936, which provides that “the 

Federal Government should improve or participate in the improvement of navigable waters 

or their tributaries . . . if the benefits . . . are in excess of the estimated costs.” 

33 U.S.C. §701a. 
Page 23 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Even villages that do meet the Corps’ cost/benefit criteria may still fail to 

receive assistance if they cannot provide or find sufficient funding to meet 

the cost-share requirements for the project. By law, the Corps generally 

requires local communities to fund between 25 and 50 percent of project 

planning and construction costs for flood prevention and erosion control 

projects.13 According to village leaders we spoke to, under these cost-share 

requirements they may need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or 

more to fund their portion of a project—funding that many of them do not 

have.14

Qualifying for Some NRCS 

Programs Is Less Difficult

As shown in table 3, NRCS has three key programs that can provide 

assistance to villages to protect against flooding and erosion—two of 

which are less difficult to qualify for than the Corps program. The NRCS 

programs are the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, the 

Emergency Watershed Protection Program, and the Conservation 

Technical Assistance Program. The purpose of the Watershed Protection 

and Flood Prevention Program is to assist federal, state, and local agencies 

and tribal governments in protecting and restoring watersheds from 

damage caused by erosion, and flooding.15 Qualifying for funding under the 

NRCS Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program requires a 

cost/benefit analysis similar to that of the Corps. In fact, according to an 

NRCS headquarters official, there should be little if any difference in the 

standards for cost benefit analyses between the Corps and NRCS 

programs. As a result, few projects for Alaskan Native villages have been 

funded under this program.

13The Corps has the authority to make cost sharing adjustments based upon a community’s 

ability to pay under section 103 (m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as 

amended. 33 U.S.C. §2213 (m).

14According to state of Alaska officials, historically the state has provided the nonfederal 

matching funds for most Corps of Engineers (and other federal projects), and with the 

extreme budget deficits currently faced by the state of Alaska, the matching funds have 

been severely limited. 

15The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program was authorized under the 

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 83-566 (1954).
Page 24 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

In contrast, some villages have been able to qualify for assistance from the 

Emergency Watershed Protection Program, because for this program 

NRCS’s policy is different and allows consideration of additional factors in 

the cost/benefit analysis.16 Specifically, NRCS considers social or 

environmental factors when calculating the potential benefits of a 

proposed project, and protecting the subsistence lifestyle of an Alaska 

Native village can be included as one of these factors. In addition, NRCS 

headquarters officials have instructed field staff to “take a second look” at 

proposed projects in which the potential benefits are nearly equal to the 

project costs. In some cases, according to NRCS’s National Emergency 

Watershed Protection Program Leader, there may be unusual 

circumstances that might make the project worthwhile even if the costs 

slightly outweigh the benefits. One example provided by this official was 

for projects that involved protecting Native American burial grounds. 

Furthermore, while NRCS’s program encourages cost sharing by local 

communities, this requirement can be waived when the local community 

cannot afford to pay. Such was the case in Unalakleet, where the 

community had petitioned federal and state agencies to fund its local costshare of an erosion protection project and was not successful. Eventually, 

NRCS waived the cost-share requirement for the village and covered the 

total cost of the project itself. (See fig. 6.) Another NRCS official in Alaska 

estimated that about 25 villages have requested assistance under this 

program during the last 5 years; of these 25 villages, 6 received some 

assistance from NRCS, and 19 were turned down—mostly because there 

were either no feasible solutions or because the problems they wished to 

address were recurring ones. One factor that limits the assistance provided 

by the program is that it is intended for smaller scale projects than those 

that might be constructed by the Corps. Moreover, because this program is 

designed to respond quickly to emergencies, it is limited to addressing onetime events—such as repairing damage caused by a large storm—rather 

than addressing recurring flooding and erosion. 

16The Emergency Watershed Protection Program was authorized under the Flood Control 

Act of 1950, Pub. L. No. 81-516 (1950).
Page 25 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Figure 6: NRCS Seawall Erosion Protection Project at Unalakleet (c. 2000)

Unlike the other NRCS programs and the Corps program, NRCS’s 

Conservation Technical Assistance Program does not require any cost 

benefit analysis to qualify for assistance.17 An NRCS official in Alaska 

estimated that during the last 2 years, NRCS provided assistance to about 

25 villages under this program. The program is designed to provide 

technical assistance to communities and individuals that request help to 

solve natural resource problems, improve the health of the watershed, 

reduce erosion, improve air and water quality, or maintain or improve 

wetlands and habitat. The technical assistance provided can range from 

Source: NRCS.

17The Conservation Technical Assistance Program was authorized under the Soil 

Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, Pub. L. No. 74-46 (1935).
Page 26 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

advice or consultation services to developing planning, design, and/or 

engineering documents. The program does not fund the construction or 

implementation of a project. 

Alaska State Programs Are 

Also Available to Respond 

to Flooding and Erosion

In addition to the federal programs, the state of Alaska has programs to 

help address or respond to flooding and erosion problems of Alaska Native 

villages. These include: 

• The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, which 

funds work through its maintenance appropriations to protect village 

airstrips from erosion.

• The Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, 

which has a floodplain management program that provides coordination 

and technical assistance to communities to help reduce public-and 

private-sector losses and damage from flooding and erosion.

• The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, which has a 

Village Safe Water Program that can pay to relocate water or sewage 

treatment facilities that are threatened by erosion.

• The Alaska Housing Financing Corporation, which has a program to 

provide loans or grants to persons in imminent danger of losing their 

homes.

• The Alaska Division of Emergency Services, which coordinates the 

response to emergencies resulting from flooding and erosion, as 

requested by local communities. Its mission is to lead, coordinate, and 

support the emergency management system, in order to protect lives 

and prevent the loss of property from all types of hazards. With 

authorization from the governor, the state Disaster Relief Fund can 

make up to $1 million (without legislative approval) available to 

communities recovering from a state declared disaster. More funding 

may be available, with legislative approval, for presidential disaster 

declarations, for which the state is obligated to pay a 25 percent funding 

match.

In addition to these programs, the state legislature, through its 

appropriations, has funded erosion control structures including bulkheads 

and sea walls. According to state documents, between 1972 and 1991 the 

state spent over $40 million for erosion control statewide.
Page 27 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Four Villages in 

Imminent Danger Are 

Planning to Relocate, 

and the Remaining Five 

Villages Are Taking 

Other Actions

Four of the nine villages we reviewed are in imminent danger from flooding 

and erosion and are making plans to relocate, while the remaining five are 

taking other actions. (See fig. 7.) Of the four villages relocating, Kivalina, 

Newtok, and Shishmaref are working with relevant federal agencies to 

locate suitable new sites, while Koyukuk is just beginning the relocation 

planning process. The cost of relocating these villages is expected to be 

high, although estimates currently exist only for Kivalina. Of the five 

villages not planning to relocate, Barrow, Kaktovik, Point Hope, and 

Unalakleet each have studies under way that target specific infrastructure 

that is vulnerable to flooding and erosion. The fifth village, Bethel, is 

repairing and extending an existing seawall to protect the village’s dock 

from river erosion. Table 5 summarizes the status of the nine villages’ 

efforts to respond to their specific flooding and erosion problems. During 

our review of the nine villages, we found instances where federal agencies 

had invested in infrastructure projects without knowledge of the villages’ 

plans to relocate. 
Page 28 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Figure 7: Map of Alaska with Nine Villages Highlighted 
Page 29 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Table 5: Nine Alaska Native Villages’ Efforts to Address Flooding and Erosion 

Source: GAO analysis.

Four Villages in Imminent 

Danger Are Making Plans to 

Relocate 

Four villages—Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref—are in 

imminent danger of flooding and eroding and are planning to relocate. (See 

table 5.) Kivalina and Shishmaref are located on barrier islands that are 

continuously shrinking due to chronic erosion. In Newtok, the Ninglick 

River is making its way ever closer to the village, with an average erosion 

rate of 90 feet per year, and is expected to erode the land under homes, 

schools, and businesses within 5 years. The fourth village, Koyukuk, is 

located near the confluence of the Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers and 

experiences chronic annual flooding.

Kivalina The village of Kivalina lies on a barrier island that is both overcrowded and 

shrinking from chronic erosion. Surrounded by the Chukchi Sea and the 

Alaska Native village Population Status of efforts

Villages planning to relocate

Kivalina 377 Located on a barrier island that is both overcrowded and shrinking. Cost estimates to 

relocate range from $100 million to over $400 million. The village is working with the 

Corps on further site selections for evaluation.

Shishmaref 562 Located on a barrier island and experiencing chronic erosion. Working on 

constructing a temporary seawall while concurrently working on a relocation site 

selection with NRCS.

Newtok 321 Suffers chronic erosion along its riverbank. Legislation for a land exchange with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service became law in November 2003 (Pub. L. No. 108-129). 

Under the Corps’ Planning Assistance to States Program, the relocation study is 

continuing.

Koyukuk 101 Experiences severe flooding from Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers. Community is in the 

process of assessing prospective relocation sites.

Villages taking other actions

Kaktovik 293 Airport runway is subject to annual flooding. FAA-funded study under way to 

determine least cost alternative.

Point Hope 757 Airport runway experiences flooding and is at risk of erosion. The North Slope 

Borough is analyzing construction alternatives for an evacuation road.

Barrow 4,581 The Corps has begun a feasibility study to address beach flooding and erosion 

problems, particularly along the village’s utility corridor.

Unalakleet 747 Coastal and river flooding and erosion have combined to create a chronic problem at 

the harbor. The Corps has begun a study on improving navigational access.

Bethel 5,471 Spring break-up ice jams on the Kuskokwim River cause both periodic flooding and 

severe erosion along the riverbank. A seawall to protect the dock and small boat 

harbor is currently being repaired and extended.
Page 30 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Kivalina Lagoon, the village has no further room for expansion. (See fig. 8.) 

A 1994 study by a private contractor found more than one instance of 16 

people living together in a 900-square-foot home. Overcrowding and poor 

sanitation have led to an extremely high incidence of communicable 

diseases and other health problems in Kivalina. Chronic erosion on the 

lagoon side of the island and along its southeastern tip where the lagoon 

empties into the sea has further exacerbated overcrowding. Several homes 

along this side are currently in danger of falling into the lagoon. On the 

seaside of the island, fall storm surges create annual coastal flooding and 

beach erosion. Portions of the island have been breached before, and it is 

believed that the right combination of storm events could flood the entire 

village at any time. 
Page 31 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Figure 8: Aerial view of Kivalina (c. 1999)

Source: FAA.
Page 32 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

In 1990, the Corps placed sandbags around the southern tip of the island in 

an attempt to stem the erosion, but that proved to be only a temporary 

solution. Most recent efforts to respond to flooding and erosion have 

involved studying the feasibility of possible relocation sites. The villagers 

would like a site that is near their current location with access to the ocean 

so that they can continue to pursue their subsistence lifestyle. Much of the 

surrounding area, however, is low-lying wetlands or tundra. One of the 

main obstacles for selecting a site has been the requirement of a gravel pad 

for some of the sites under consideration. In those cases, several feet of 

gravel must be spread over the entire site, both to elevate the new village 

above the floodplain and to protect the fragile permafrost. However, gravel 

is not easily accessible and would have to be barged in. Similarly, the harsh, 

remote terrain and limited site access drive up other costs for materials and 

machinery. The Corps has estimated that the cost to relocate Kivalina could 

range from $100 million for design and construction of infrastructure 

(including a gravel pad) at one site and up to $400 million for just the cost 

of building a gravel pad at another site. As a result, the community is now 

considering whether to ask the Corps to evaluate completely new sites that 

would not require a gravel pad. Remaining on the island, however, is no 

longer a viable option for the community. 

Shishmaref Like Kivalina, the village of Shishmaref is located on a barrier island in the 

Chukchi Sea and experiences chronic erosion. During severe fall storms, as 

occurred in 1973, 1997, 2001, and 2002, the village has lost on average 

between 20 and 50 feet of land and up to 125 feet at one time. This loss is 

considerable for an island that is no wider than one-quarter mile (1,320 

feet). After a severe storm in October 2002, stress cracks along the western 

seaside bluffs became evident. These cracks were 5 to 10 feet from the 

edge of the banks and indicated that the permafrost that holds the island 

together had been undermined by the storm. As the permafrost melts, the 

banks cave in. (See fig. 9.) Several homes located along these banks had to 

be relocated to prevent them from falling into the sea. After the 1997 fall 

storm, which was declared a state disaster, FEMA and state matching funds 

were used to help move 14 homes along the coastal bluff to another part of 

the village, and in 2002, the Bering Straits Housing Authority relocated an 

additional 5 homes out of harm’s way.
Page 33 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Figure 9: Bluff Erosion and Permafrost Melting in Shishmaref (c. 2002)

Although the Corps had informed the villagers of Shishmaref in 1953 that 

relocation would be a cheaper alternative to building a seawall to protect 

the bluffs, the community did not vote to relocate until 1973 when it 

experienced two unusually severe fall storms that caused widespread 

damage and erosion. However, the site that the community selected proved 

to be unsuitable because it had an extensive layer of permafrost. 

Furthermore, other government agencies told the villagers that they would 

not receive funding for their new school or a much-needed new runway if 

they decided to relocate. According to Corps documents, the community 

reversed its decision and voted in August 1974 to stay on the island. The 

new school was completed in 1977, and a few years later a new runway was 

also built.

Since the 1970s, the village has attempted a variety of erosion protection 

measures totaling more than $5 million. These projects have included 

various sandbag and gabion seawalls (wire cages, or baskets, filled with 

Source: Kawerak.
Page 34 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

rocks) and even a concrete block mat. Each project has required numerous 

repairs and has ultimately failed to provide long-term protection. In 

October 2001, the governor of Alaska issued an administrative order for an 

$85,000 protective sandbag wall that was intended to last only one storm—

and it did just that. In July 2002, the community again voted to relocate, and 

it is currently working with NRCS to select an appropriate site. Once a site 

is selected, the relocation process itself will take a number of years to 

complete. In the meantime, stopgap erosion protection measures and other 

federal and state services continue to be necessary to safeguard the 

community. For this reason, the community is working with Kawerak, a 

nonprofit Native corporation, to build a 500-foot seawall at an estimated 

cost of $1 million along the most affected part of the seaside bluff. The 

village is also seeking the Corps’ assistance to extend the wall farther to 

protect the school and other public buildings. In addition, the community is 

applying for assistance through the Alaska Army National Guard’s 

Innovative Readiness Training Program, in which guard units gain training 

and experience while providing medical, transportation, and engineering 

services to rural villages. 

Newtok The village of Newtok, located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta on the 

Ninglick River, suffers from chronic erosion along its riverbank. Between 

1954 and 2001 the village lost more than 4,000 feet of land to erosion. The 

current erosion rate has been estimated at 90 feet per year. At this rate, the 

Corps believes that the land under village residences and infrastructure will 

erode within 5 years.18 Among its various attempts to combat erosion, the 

village placed an experimental $750,000 sandbag wall along the riverbank 

in 1987. The wall, however, failed to slow the rate of erosion. The 

community recently negotiated a land exchange with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service for a new village site. Legislation authorizing the 

conveyance to Newtok of both the surface and subsurface estate of 

specified federal lands on nearby Nelson Island in exchange for land the 

village currently owns or would receive title to under ANCSA was signed

18Under the Tribal Partnership Program, authorized by section 203 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (Pub. L. No. 106-541, 114 Stat. 2572, 2588-2589 (2000)), the Corps is 

currently examining impacts of coastal erosion due to continued climate change and other 

factors in the Alaska Native villages of Bethel, Dillingham, Shishmaref, Kaktovik, Kivalina, 

Unalakleet and Newtok. Congress provided $2 million for these activities in fiscal year 2003. 
Page 35 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

into law in November 2003.19 In anticipation of a move, the village is 

studying the soils and geology of the proposed relocation site to determine 

its suitability. 

Koyukuk The fourth village planning to relocate is Koyukuk, which is located 

entirely in a floodplain near the confluence of the Yukon and Koyukuk 

rivers. It experiences severe flooding, mostly as a result of ice jams that 

occur after the spring breakup of river ice. (See fig. 10.) Water that 

accumulates behind the ice jams repeatedly floods homes and public 

structures, including the school and runway. The flooding is episodic, but 

villagers prepare for it every year in the spring by placing their belongings 

in high places and putting their vehicles on floats. The village has been 

evacuated more than once. In July 2003, with funding assistance from 

FEMA, the Tanana Chiefs Conference, which is a nonprofit regional 

corporation, developed a flood mitigation plan for Koyukuk that includes 

both evacuation and relocation strategies. The community is in the process 

of assessing prospective relocation areas to find an appropriate site. In the 

meantime, the FAA has awarded a grant to the state to both raise the grade 

of and lengthen Koyukuk’s runway at a cost of $10.3 million.20

19Pub. L. No. 108-129, 117 Stat. 1358 (2003). 

20According to FAA officials, the planned relocation of the village will not include the 

construction of another airport. 
Page 36 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Figure 10: Aerial View of Ice Jam and Flooding at Koyukuk, Near the Confluence of 

the Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers (c. 2001)

Five Villages Are 

Conducting Flooding and 

Erosion Studies or 

Improving Infrastructure

The remaining five villages, while not in imminent danger, do experience 

serious flooding and erosion and are undertaking various infrastructurespecific activities to resolve these problems. Kaktovik is studying how best 

to address flooding of its airport runway. Point Hope is studying 

alternatives for an emergency evacuation road in the event of flooding. 

Barrow has a study under way for dealing with beachfront erosion that 

threatens the village’s utility corridor. Unalakleet is beginning a study to 

respond to erosion problems at its harbor and improve its navigational 

access. Finally, Bethel is repairing and extending an existing seawall to 

protect the village’s dock from river erosion.

Kaktovik The village of Kaktovik, located on Barter Island at the northern edge of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, experiences flooding of its airport runway. 

The eastern end of the runway is approximately 1 to 2 feet above mean sea 

level, while the western end is approximately 7 to 8 feet above mean sea 

level. As a result of this low elevation, the runway usually floods every fall 

and is inoperative for 2 to 4 days, according to Kaktovik’s mayor. In 2000, 

the North Slope Borough, which operates the airport, contracted with the 

Source: Alaska Division of Emergency Services.
Page 37 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Arctic Slope Consulting Group, Inc., to conduct a flood study at the airport. 

The study presented a preliminary cost estimate of $11.3 million for 

protecting the runway from damage by storm events resulting in 100-year 

flood conditions. Recently, the North Slope Borough and FAA hired an 

engineering company to prepare an Airport Master Plan that will provide 

alternatives for upgrading the existing runway or building a new airport, 

either on Barter Island (estimated at $15 to $20 million) or on the mainland 

(estimated at $25 to $35 million). FAA will support the least-cost alternative 

and will fund 93.75 percent of the project, while the North Slope Borough 

will fund the remaining 6.25 percent. The study should be completed in 

2004. 

Point Hope The village of Point Hope, located on a spit of land that is one of the longest 

continually inhabited areas in northwest Alaska (with settlements over 

2,500 years old), moved to its current location in the 1970s because of 

flooding and erosion problems at its original site. However, flooding and 

erosion remain a concern for the community at its new location, prompting 

efforts to build an evacuation road and relocate its runway. The North 

Slope Borough has funded a Project Analysis Report that assesses three 

construction options for an emergency evacuation road, which include 

reconstructing an existing road, extending that road to the mainland, or 

constructing a new road altogether. The road would not only facilitate 

emergency evacuation in the event of a flood, but would also provide a 

transportation route to a relocated runway. The village’s current runway, 

which is a mile west of the current village and extends to the Chukchi Sea, 

floods during fall storms and is at risk of erosion. According to village 

representatives, the runway was inoperable for 5 days last year because of 

flooding. (See fig. 11.) One end of the runway is currently about 80 feet 

from the ocean, and village officials estimate that between 5 to 8 feet of 

land are lost to erosion annually. They noted however, that a single storm 

could take as much as 20 feet of land. 
Page 38 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Figure 11: Airport Runway at the Native Village of Point Hope (c. 2001)

Barrow The Alaska Native village of Barrow is grappling with ways to address 

beach erosion and flooding. Much of the community’s infrastructure is at 

risk from storm damage, shoreline erosion, and flooding. About $500 

million of Barrow’s infrastructure is located in the floodplain. In particular, 

the road that separates the sewage lagoon and an old landfill from the sea is 

at risk, as well as the village’s utility corridor. This underground corridor 

contains sewage, water and power lines, and communication facilities for 

the community. Beach erosion threatens over 1 mile of the corridor. 

According to village and North Slope Borough officials, the Borough 

coordinates erosion projects for the village and spends about $500,000 each 

time there is a flood. The Corps has recently begun a feasibility study for a 

storm damage reduction project along Barrow’s beach.

Source: Tikigaq Corporation.
Page 39 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Unalakleet The Alaska Native village of Unalakleet experiences both coastal and river 

flooding, which, when combined with shoreline erosion, have created an 

access problem at the harbor. Eroded land has piled up at the harbor 

mouth, creating six distinct sandbars. These sandbars pose a serious 

problem for barge passage; barges and fishing boats must wait for high tide 

to reach the harbor, delaying the delivery of bulk goods, fuel, and other 

items, which increases the costs of the cargo and moorage. The sandbars 

also pose a risk to those whose boats get stuck at low tide and who must 

simply sit and wait for a high tide. Unalakleet serves as a subregional hub 

for several nearby villages that rely on the harbor and fish processing plant 

for conducting their commercial fishing businesses. The village was 

recently able to raise $400,000 from the Norton Sound Economic 

Development Corporation and $400,000 from Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities for the local share of a Corps study on 

improving navigational access to its harbor. 

Bethel Bethel, the regional village hub of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, 

experiences periodic flooding, mostly because of ice jams during the spring 

breakup of the Kuskokwim River. The ice also causes severe erosion by 

scouring the riverbanks. The spring ice breakup in 1995 caused such severe 

erosion that the governor of Alaska declared a state of emergency—ice 

scour created a cove 350 feet long and 200 feet inland, endangering several 

structures and severely undercutting the city dock. The village’s main port 

is the only one on the western Alaska coast for oceangoing ships and serves 

as the supply center for over 50 villages in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. In 

response to the 1995 emergency, the village placed rock along 600 linear 

feet of the riverbank and dock. This was the beginning of an 8,000-foot 

bank stabilization seawall that cost $24 million. Currently, the Corps has a 

project under way to repair this seawall by placing more rock and by 

replacing the steel tieback system and placing steel wale on the inland side 

of the pipe piles. The project will also extend the seawall 1,200 feet so that 

it protects the entrance to Bethel’s small boat harbor. The initial cost 

estimate for this project in 2001 was over $4.7 million, with average annual 

costs of $374,000. 

Federal Agencies Are 

Investing in Infrastructure 

without Knowledge of 

Villages’ Relocation Plans

During our review of these villages, we found instances where federal 

agencies invested in infrastructure projects without knowledge of the 

villages’ plans to relocate. For example, the Denali Commission and the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development were unaware of 

Newtok’s relocation plans when they decided to jointly fund a new health 

clinic in the village for $1.1 million (using fiscal year 2002 and 2003 funds). 
Page 40 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

During our site visit to Newtok, we observed that the new clinic’s building 

materials had already been delivered to the dock. Once it is constructed 

and the village is ready to relocate, moving a building the size of the new 

clinic across the river may be difficult and costly. Neither the Denali 

Commission nor the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

realized that the plans for Newtok’s relocation were moving forward, even 

though legislation for completing a land exchange deal with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service was first introduced in March 2002. Similarly, in 

Koyukuk, the FAA was initially unaware of the village’s relocation plans 

when it solicited bids for a $10.3 million state project to increase the grade 

of and lengthen the village’s existing runway, according to FAA officials. 

When we further discussed this with FAA officials, however, they noted 

that it is the state of Alaska that prioritizes and selects the transportation 

projects that receive FAA grants. According to these FAA officials, who 

awarded the grant for Koyukuk’s runway, state transportation officials 

were aware of the village’s decision to relocate. 

Although we recognize that development and maintenance of critical 

infrastructure, such as health clinics and runways, are necessary as villages 

find ways to address flooding and erosion, we question whether limited 

federal funds for these projects are being expended in the most effective 

and efficient manner possible. The Denali Commission, cognizant of the 

stated purpose of its authorizing act to deliver services in a cost-effective 

manner, has developed a draft investment policy intended to guide the 

process of project selection and ensure prudent investment of federal 

funds. The draft policy provides guidance for designers to tailor facilities 

based on six primary investment indicators: size of community and 

population trends, imminent environmental threats, proximity/access to 

existing services and/or facilities, per capita investment benchmarks, unit 

construction costs, and economic potential. These indicators provide the 

Denali Commission and its partners with an investment framework that 

will guide selection and funding for sustainable projects. Flooding and 

erosion issues fall under the “imminent environmental threats” indicator. 

The commission has applied this draft policy to Shishmaref, which 

requested a new clinic at its current location. Given that the village is in the 

process of relocating, the commission awarded $150,000 to repair the 

existing clinic in Shishmaref in lieu of building a new clinic. 

In addition, the Denali Commission recognizes that systematic planning 

and coordination on a local, regional, and statewide basis are necessary to 

achieve the most effective results from investments in infrastructure, 

economic development, and training, and has signed a memorandum of 
Page 41 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

understanding with 31 federal and state agencies to achieve this goal. This 

memorandum of understanding could serve as a vehicle by which other 

federal agencies would follow the lead of the Denali Commission regarding 

decisions to invest in infrastructure for communities threatened by 

flooding and erosion. 

Alternatives for 

Addressing Barriers 

That Villages Face in 

Obtaining Federal 

Services

The unique circumstances of Alaska Native villages and their inability to 

qualify for assistance under a variety of federal flooding and erosion 

programs may require special measures to ensure that the villages receive 

certain needed services. Alaska Native villages, which are predominately 

remote and small, often face barriers not commonly found in other areas of 

the United States, such as harsh climate, limited access and infrastructure, 

high fuel and shipping prices, short construction seasons, and ice-rich 

permafrost soils. In addition, many of the federal programs to prevent and 

control flooding and erosion are not a good fit for the Alaska Native villages 

because of the requirement that economic costs of the project not exceed 

the economic benefits. Federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska Native 

village representatives that we spoke with identified several alternatives 

for Congress that could help mitigate the barriers that villages face in 

obtaining federal services. 

These alternatives include (1) expanding the role of the Denali Commission 

to include responsibilities for managing a flooding and erosion assistance 

program, (2) directing the Corps and NRCS to include social and 

environmental factors in their cost/benefit analyses for projects requested 

by Alaska Native villages, and (3) waiving the federal cost-sharing 

requirement for flooding and erosion projects for Alaska Native villages. In 

addition, GAO identified a fourth alternative—authorizing the bundling of 

funds from various agencies to address flooding and erosion problems in 

these villages. Each of these alternatives has the potential to increase the 

level of federal services provided to Alaska Native villages and can be 

considered individually or in any combination. However, adopting some of 

these alternatives will require consideration of a number of important 

factors, including the potential to set a precedent for other communities 

and programs as well as resulting budgetary implications. While we did not 

determine the cost or the national policy implications associated with any 

of the alternatives, these are important considerations when determining 

appropriate federal action. 
Page 42 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Expand the Role of the 

Denali Commission

Congress may want to consider expanding the role of the Denali 

Commission by directing that federal funding for flooding and erosion 

studies and projects in Alaska Native villages go through the commission. 

Currently, the Denali Commission does not have explicit responsibility for 

flooding and erosion programs. This alternative would authorize the Denali 

Commission to establish a program that conducts studies and constructs 

projects to mitigate flooding and control erosion in Alaska Native villages 

that would otherwise not qualify under Corps and NRCS flooding and 

erosion programs. The commission could set priorities for its studies and 

projects and respond to the problems of those villages most in need, and it 

could enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Corps or other 

related agencies to carry out these studies and projects. One of the factors 

to consider in adopting this alternative is that additional funding may be 

required.

This alternative is similar to the current proposal in S. 295 that would 

expand the role of the Denali Commission to include a transportation 

function.21 S. 295 would authorize the commission to construct marine 

connections (such as connecting small docks, boat ramps, and port 

facilities) and other transportation access infrastructure for communities 

that would otherwise lack access to the National Highway System. Under 

the bill, the commission would designate the location of the transportation 

project and set priorities for constructing segments of the system. 

Direct the Corps and NRCS 

to Include Social and 

Environmental Factors in 

Their Cost/Benefit Analyses

A second alternative is for Congress to direct the Corps and NRCS to 

include social and environmental factors in its cost/benefit analysis for 

flooding and erosion projects for Alaska Native villages. Under this 

alternative, the Corps would not only consider social and environmental 

factors, but would also incorporate them into its cost/benefit analysis. 

Similarly, NRCS for its Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 

Program would also incorporate social and environmental factors into its 

cost/benefit analysis. To capture these factors even when they cannot be 

easily quantified, the Corps and NRCS may have to consider these factors 

explicitly. Several Alaska Native entities have raised this issue with the 

Corps and the Alaska congressional delegation. For example, the Native 

village of Unalakleet has led efforts to have the Corps revise its cost/benefit 

analysis. As part of these efforts, the village has worked with state and 

21Denali Transportation System Act, S. 295, 108th Cong. (2003).
Page 43 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

federal agencies; the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents Native 

corporations statewide; and the Alaska congressional delegation. One 

implication of adopting this alternative for Alaska Native villages may be 

that it could set a precedent for flooding and erosion control projects in 

other communities. 

This alternative is intended to benefit small and remote villages that often 

fail to qualify for assistance because the cost of the study or project 

exceeds the benefits. The number of villages that may be able to qualify for 

a study or project under this alternative will depend on the extent to which 

the Corps and NRCS incorporate social and environmental factors into 

their calculations. However, if more villages qualify for projects under this 

approach, the increase could have an impact on the amount of funds and 

resources that the Corps and NRCS have available for these efforts. 

Congress is currently considering a bill that would direct the Corps to 

approve certain projects that do not necessarily meet the cost/benefit 

requirement. In H.R. 2557, the Corps would be authorized to provide 

assistance to communities with remote and subsistence harbors that meet 

certain criteria.22 In particular, for studies of harbor and navigational 

improvements, the Secretary of the Army could recommend a project 

without the need to demonstrate that it is justified solely by net national 

economic development benefits, if the Secretary determines that, among 

other considerations, (1) the community to be served by the project is at 

least 70 miles from the nearest surface-accessible commercial port and has 

no direct rail or highway link to another community served by a surfaceaccessible port or harbor or is in Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana 

Islands, or American Samoa; (2) the harbor is economically critical such 

that over 80 percent of the goods transported through the harbor would be 

consumed within the community; and (3) the long-term viability of the 

community would be threatened without the harbor and navigation 

improvement. These criteria would apply to many remote and subsistence 

harbors in Alaska Native villages. 

22H.R. 2557, §2011, 108th Cong. (2003).
Page 44 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Waive the Federal CostSharing Requirement for 

Flooding and Erosion 

Projects

A third alternative is to waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for 

flooding and erosion projects for Alaska Native villages. As required by law, 

the Corps currently imposes a cost-share of between 25 and 50 percent of 

project planning and construction costs. These sums, which are generally 

in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, are difficult for villages to 

generate. This difficulty has been one of the more common criticisms of the 

Corps’ program. For example, the village of Unalakleet had difficulty 

obtaining funding for its local cost-share requirement for a project. 

Adopting this alternative for Alaska Native villages would require an 

assessment of several factors, including setting a precedent for other 

flooding and erosion control projects in other communities as well as 

budgetary implications.

In H.R. 2557, Congress is considering waiving the cost-sharing provisions 

for studies and projects in certain areas. In this bill, the Secretary of the 

Army would be required to waive up to $500,000 of the local cost-sharing 

requirements for all studies and projects in several locations, including 

land in the state of Alaska conveyed to Alaska Native Village Corporations.

Authorize Bundling of 

Funds from Various 

Agencies to Respond to 

Flooding and Erosion 

Problems

Congress could also consider authorizing the bundling of funds from 

various agencies to respond to flooding and erosion in Alaska Native 

villages. Under this alternative, Alaska Native villages could consolidate 

and integrate funding from flooding and erosion programs from various 

federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, to conduct an erosion study or to help 

fund the local cost share of a Corps project. Doing so would potentially 

allow Alaska Native villages to use available federal assistance for flooding 

and erosion more effectively and efficiently. By law, Indian tribal 

governments are currently allowed to integrate their federally funded 

employment, training, and related services programs from various agencies 

into a single, coordinated, comprehensive program that reduces 

administrative costs by consolidating administrative functions.23 Many 

Alaska Native villages participate in this program.

23Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 

102-477, 106 Stat. 2302 (1992).
Page 45 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Several bills have been introduced to authorize tribal governments also to 

bundle federal funding for economic development programs and for 

alcohol and substance abuse programs. For example, in the 106th, 107th, and 

108th sessions of Congress, bills were introduced to authorize the 

integration and coordination of federal funding for community, business, 

and economic development of Native American communities.24 Under 

these bills, tribal governments or their agencies may identify federal 

assistance programs to be integrated for the purpose of supporting 

economic development projects. Similarly, in the 107th and 108th

Congresses, S. 210 and S. 285 were introduced to authorize, respectively, 

the integration and consolidation of alcohol and substance abuse programs 

and services provided by tribal governments. 

Conclusion Alaska Native villages that are not making plans to relocate, but are 

severely affected by flooding and erosion, must find ways to respond to 

these problems. However, many of these villages have difficulty finding 

assistance under several federal programs, largely because the economic 

costs of the proposed project to control flooding and erosion exceed the 

expected economic benefits. As a result, many private homes and other 

infrastructure continue to be threatened and are in danger from flooding 

and erosion. In addition, many Alaska Native villages that are small, 

remote, and have a subsistence lifestyle, lack the resources to help them 

respond to flooding and erosion. Given the unique circumstances of Alaska 

Native villages, special measures may be required to ensure that these 

communities receive assistance in responding to flooding and erosion. 

Alaska Native villages that cannot be protected from flooding and erosion 

through engineering structures and must relocate face a particularly 

daunting challenge. These villages are working with federal and state 

agencies to find ways to address this challenge. Any potential solution, 

however, whether a single erosion protection project or full relocation, 

goes through stages of planning and execution that can take years to 

complete. In the interim, investment decisions must be made regarding 

delivery of services such as building new structures or renovating and 

upgrading existing structures. Such decisions for villages should be made 

in light of the status of their efforts to address flooding and erosion. We 

identified a number of instances where projects were approved and 

24The bills introduced in the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses were S. 2052, S. 343, and

S. 1528, respectively.
Page 46 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

designed without considering a village’s relocation plans. Investing in 

infrastructure that cannot be easily moved or may be costly to move may 

not be the best use of limited federal funds. It is encouraging that the 

Denali Commission is working on a policy to ensure that investments are 

made in a conscientious and sustainable manner for villages threatened by 

flooding and erosion. Successful implementation of such a policy will 

depend in part on its adoption by individual federal agencies that also fund 

infrastructure development in Alaska Native villages. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

In order to ensure that federal funds are expended in the most effective and 

efficient manner possible, we recommend that the federal cochairperson of 

the Denali Commission, in conjunction with the state of Alaska 

cochairperson, adopt a policy to guide future investment decisions and 

project designs in Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion. 

The policy should ensure that (1) the Commission is aware of villages’ 

efforts to address flooding and erosion and (2) projects are designed 

appropriately in light of a village’s plans to address its flooding and erosion 

problems. 

Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration

Determining the appropriate level of service for Alaska Native villages is a 

policy decision that rests with Congress. We present four alternatives that 

Congress may wish to consider as it deliberates over how, and to what 

extent, federal programs could better respond to flooding and erosion in 

Alaska Native villages. In any such decision, two factors that would be 

important to consider are the cost and the national policy implications of 

implementing any alternative or combination of alternatives. If Congress 

would like to provide additional federal assistance to Alaska Native 

villages, it may wish to consider directing relevant executive agencies and 

the Denali Commission to assess the cost and policy implications of 

implementing the alternatives that we have identified or others that may be 

appropriate. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture, 

Defense, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, 

the Interior, and Transportation; the Denali Commission; and the state of 

Alaska. The Departments of Defense, Housing and Urban Development, 

and the Interior, as well as the Denali Commission and the state of Alaska, 

provided official written comments. (See appendixes IV through VIII, 
Page 47 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

respectively, for the full text of the comments received from these agencies 

and our responses.) The comments were generally technical in nature with 

few comments on the report’s overall findings, recommendation, and 

alternatives. The Departments of Health and Human Services and 

Transportation provided informal technical comments, and the Department 

of Agriculture had no comments on the report. We made changes to the 

draft report, where appropriate, based on the technical comments provided 

by the seven entities that commented on the draft report.

The Denali Commission was the only entity to comment on our 

recommendation that the commission adopt an investment policy. The 

commission agreed with the recommendation and noted that such a policy 

should help avoid flawed decision making in the future. Furthermore, the 

commission commented that it was not sufficient for it alone to have an 

investment policy, but believed that all funding agencies should use a 

similar policy to guide investments. We acknowledge the commission’s 

concerns that other funding agencies should also make sound investment 

decisions. As noted in our report, the Denali Commission has signed a 

memorandum of understanding with 31 federal and state agencies with the 

goal of systematic planning and coordination for investments in 

infrastructure, economic development, and training, and we believe that 

this memorandum could serve as a vehicle by which other federal agencies 

would follow the lead of the commission regarding decisions to invest in 

communities.

Of the four alternatives presented in the report, the alternative to funnel 

funding for flooding and erosion projects through the Denali Commission 

received the most comments. The Denali Commission, the U.S. Army 

(commenting on behalf of the Department of Defense), and the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development all raised some concerns about this 

alternative. The Denali Commission commented that it is not convinced 

that expanding its role to include responsibilities for managing a flooding 

and erosion program is the appropriate response. The Army commented 

that the alternative to expand the role of the Denali Commission to mange a 

flooding and erosion program might exceed the capabilities of the 

organization. Lastly, the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

commented that the Denali Commission, as an independent agency, does 

not have the capacity to be fully integrated with the efforts of federal 

agencies to address this issue. Moreover, while each of these entities 

recognized the need for improved coordination of federal efforts to address 

flooding and erosion in Alaska Native villages, none of them provided any 

specific suggestions on how or by whom this should be accomplished. As 
Page 48 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

discussed in our report, the Denali Commission currently does not have the 

authority to manage a flooding and erosion program, and should Congress 

choose this alternative, the commission would need to develop such a 

program. Consequently, we still believe that expanding the role of the 

commission continues to be a possible option for helping to mitigate the 

barriers that villages face in obtaining federal services.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture, the 

Army, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the 

Interior, and Transportation, as well as to the federal and state cochairs of 

the Denali Commission, the Governor of the state of Alaska, appropriate 

congressional committees, and other interested Members of Congress. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX.

Anu Mittal

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment
Page 49 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the military construction 

appropriation bill directed GAO to study Alaska Native villages affected by 

flooding and erosion. In response to this direction and subsequent 

discussions with committee staff, we (1) determined the extent to which 

Alaska Native villages are affected by flooding and erosion; (2) identified 

federal and Alaska state programs available to respond to flooding and 

erosion and assessed the extent to which federal assistance has been 

provided to Alaska Native villages; (3) determined the status of efforts, 

including cost estimates, to respond to flooding and erosion in the villages 

of Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, Point Hope, 

Shishmaref, and Unalakleet; and (4) identified alternatives that Congress 

may wish to consider when providing assistance for flooding and erosion of 

Alaska Native villages. In addition, during the course of our work we 

became concerned about the possible inefficient use of federal funds for 

building infrastructure in villages that were planning to relocate. As a 

result, we are including information regarding these concerns in this 

report.

To determine which Alaska Native villages are affected by flooding and 

erosion, we reviewed Alaska and federal agency reports and databases that 

contained information on flooding and erosion. We interviewed officials 

from Alaska and federal agencies, such as the Alaska Division of 

Emergency Services, the Alaska Department of Community and Economic 

Development, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, who are involved 

in addressing flooding and erosion problems. We also interviewed Alaska 

Native officials from the selected villages, as well as officials from Native 

village and regional corporations, such as Tikigaq, the Association of 

Village Council Presidents, and Kawarek. For the purposes of this report 

we defined an Alaska Native village as a village that (1) was deemed eligible 

as a Native village under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and (2) 

has a corresponding Alaska Native entity that is recognized by the 

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs.1

 

We identified federal flooding and erosion programs by searching the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and by using other information. 

1

A total of 220 Native villages were deemed eligible under ANCSA. However, seven of those 

villages do not have corresponding Alaska Native entities recognized by the Department of 

the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. For a list of Indian entities recognized by the federal 

government, see 67 Fed. Reg. 46328 (July 12, 2002). 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope and Methodology

Page 50 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

We reviewed applicable federal laws and regulations for these programs. 

We also reviewed program file records and interviewed federal program 

officials to determine the extent to which Alaska Native villages have been 

provided federal assistance. In addition, to determine the Alaska state 

programs that are available to villages for addressing flooding and erosion, 

we interviewed appropriate state officials from the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities, the Division of Emergency Services, 

and the Department of Community and Economic Development. We also 

discussed these programs and the assistance provided with selected village 

representatives. 

While the committee directed us to include six villages, we added three 

more—Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref—based on discussions with 

congressional staff and with federal and Alaska state officials familiar with 

flooding and erosion problems. To determine the status of efforts, 

including cost estimates, to address flooding and erosion at these nine 

selected villages, we reviewed federal and state databases and studies. We 

also reviewed analyses performed by the Corps and by other federal, state, 

and local agencies. We visited only four villages—Bethel, Kivalina, 

Newtok, and Shishmaref—due to the high cost of travel in Alaska. We 

selected three of the four villages to visit that were in imminent danger (we 

visited Bethel because in order to reach Newtok we had to go through 

Bethel). We interviewed village representatives from each of the nine 

villages. We also interviewed state and federal officials involved in the 

efforts to address flooding and erosion for each of the nine villages. We 

identified and evaluated Corps studies that addressed these problems with 

particular attention to cost estimates. We also assessed the nature and 

applicability of these cost studies.

To determine what alternatives Congress may wish to consider in 

responding to flooding and erosion of Alaska Native villages, we 

interviewed local, state, and federal officials, officials from the Alaska 

Federation of Natives, and Kawarek representatives. During these 

interviews, we asked people to identify alternatives that they believed 

would address impediments to the delivery of flooding and erosion 

services. We also obtained and reviewed prior congressional bills that 

addressed Alaska Native issues. 

We conducted our review from February 2003 through October 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Page 51 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Appendix II

ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and 

Nonprofit Arms ApendxiI

Table 6 shows the list of the 13 regional corporations and the 

corresponding nonprofit arms. These nonprofit organizations provide 

social services to Alaska Native villages and also help Alaska Natives 

respond to problems, including those dealing with flooding and erosion. 

Table 6: List of ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofit Arms

Source: GAO.

For-profit regional corporation Nonprofit organization

Ahtna, Inc. Copper River Native Association

The Aleut Corporation Aleutian Pribilof Island Association 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Arctic Slope Native Association

Bering Straits Native Corporation Kawerak, Incorporated 

Bristol Bay Native Corporation Bristol Bay Native Association

Calista Corporation Association of Village Council Presidents

Chugach Alaska Corporation Chugachmiut

Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Cook Inlet Tribal Council

Doyon, Limited Fairbanks Native Association

Koniag, Inc. Kodiak Area Native Association

NANA Regional Corporation, Inc. Maniilaq Association

Sealaska Corporation Central Council

Thirteenth Regional Corporation No nonprofit organization
Page 52 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Appendix III

List of 184 Affected Alaska Native Villages by 

ANCSA Region ApendxiI

Ahtna

Cheesh-Na Tribe (formerly the Native Village of Chistochina)

Native Village of Chitina

Native Village of Gakona

Native Village of Tazlina

Aleut

Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove

Native Village of Akutan

Native Village of Atka

Native Village of Belkofskia

Native Village of False Pass

Native Village of Nelson Lagoon

Native Village of Nikolski

Pauloff Harbor Villagea

Saint George Island (see Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul 

and St. George Islands)

Saint Paul Island (see Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul and

St. George Islands)

Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point Village

Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska

Native Village of Ungaa

Arctic Slope

Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government (formerly Native 

Village of Barrow)

Kaktovik Village (aka Barter Island)

Native Village of Nuiqsut (aka Nooiksut)

Native Village of Point Hope

Native Village of Point Lay

Village of Wainwright

Bering Straits

Native Village of Brevig Mission

Chinik Eskimo Community (Golovin)

Native Village of Diomede (aka Inalik)

King Island Native Communitya
Appendix III

List of 184 Affected Alaska Native Villages by 

ANCSA Region

Page 53 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Native Village of Koyuk

Nome Eskimo Community

Native Village of Saint Michael

Native Village of Shaktoolik

Native Village of Shishmaref

Village of Solomon

Stebbins Community Association

Native Village of Teller

Native Village of Unalakleet

Native Village of Wales

Native Village of White Mountain

Native Village of Elim

Native Village of Gambell

Native Village of Savoonga

Bristol Bay

Native Village of Chignik

Native Village of Chignik Lagoon

Chignik Lake Village

Village of Clark’s Point 

Curyung Tribal Council (formerly Native Village of Dillingham)

Egegik Village

Ekwok Village

Igiugig Village

Village of Iliamna

Ivanoff Bay Village

Kokhanok Village

Levelock Village

Manokotak Village

Naknek Native Village

New Koliganek Village Council (formerly Koliganek Village)

New Stuyahok Village

Newhalen Village

Nondalton Village

Pedro Bay Village

Native Village of Perryville
Appendix III

List of 184 Affected Alaska Native Villages by 

ANCSA Region

Page 54 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Native Village of Pilot Point

Native Village of Port Heiden

Portage Creek Village (aka Ohgsenakale)

South Naknek Village

Traditional Village of Togiak

Twin Hills Village

Ugashik Village

Calista

Akiachak Native Community

Akiak Native Community

Village of Alakanuk

Algaaciq Native Village (St. Mary's)

Yupiit of Andreafski

Village of Aniak

Asa'carsarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Mountain Village)

Village of Atmautluak

Village of Chefornak

Chevak Native Village

Native Village of Chuathbaluk (Russian Mission, Kuskokwim)

Village of Crooked Creek

Native Village of Eek

Emmonak Village

Native Village of Georgetown

Native Village of Goodnews Bay

Native Village of Hooper Bay

Iqurmuit Traditional Council (formerly Native Village of Russian Mission)

Village of Kalskag

Native Village of Kasigluk

Native Village of Kipnuk

Native Village of Kongiganak

Village of Kotlik

Organized Village of Kwethluk

Native Village of Kwigillingok

Native Village of Kwinhagak (aka Quinhagak)

Lime Village
Appendix III

List of 184 Affected Alaska Native Villages by 

ANCSA Region

Page 55 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Village of Lower Kalskag

Native Village of Marshall (aka Fortuna Ledge)

Native Village of Mekoryuk

Native Village of Napaimute

Native Village of Napakiak

Native Village of Napaskiak

Newtok Village

Native Village of Nightmute

Nunakauyarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Toksook Bay)

Native Village of Nunapitchuk

Orutsararmuit Native Village (aka Bethel)

Oscarville Traditional Village

Pilot Station Traditional Village

Native Village of Pitka's Point

Platinum Traditional Village

Village of Red Devil

Native Village of Scammon Bay

Village of Sleetmute

Village of Stony River

Tuluksak Native Community

Native Village of Tuntutuliak

Native Village of Tununak

Chugach

Native Village of Chanega (aka Chenega)

Native Village of Eyak (Cordova)

Native Village of Nanwalek (aka English Bay)

Native Village of Tatitlek

Cook Inlet Region

Ninilchik Village

Seldovia Village Tribe

Native Village of Tyonek

Doyon

Alatna Village
Appendix III

List of 184 Affected Alaska Native Villages by 

ANCSA Region

Page 56 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Allakaket Village

Anvik Village

Beaver Village

Birch Creek Tribe (formerly listed as Birch Creek Village)

Chalkyitsik Village

Circle Native Community

Native Village of Eagle

Evansville Village (aka Bettles Field)

Native Village of Fort Yukon

Galena Village (aka Louden Village)

Organized Village of Grayling (aka Holikachuk)

Holy Cross Village

Hughes Village

Huslia Village

Village of Kaltag

Koyukuk Native Village

Manley Hot Springs Village

McGrath Native Village

Native Village of Minto

Nenana Native Association

Nikolai Village

Northway Village

Nulato Village

Rampart Village

Native Village of Ruby

Shageluk Native Village

Native Village of Stevens

Takotna Village

Native Village of Tanacross

Native Village of Tanana

Telida Village

Native Village of Tetlin

Koniag

Village of Afognaka

Native Village of Akhiok
Appendix III

List of 184 Affected Alaska Native Villages by 

ANCSA Region

Page 57 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Native Village of Karluk

Native Village of Larsen Bay

Village of Old Harbor

Native Village of Ouzinkie

NANA 

Native Village of Ambler

Native Village of Buckland

Native Village of Deering

Native Village of Kiana

Native Village of Kivalina

Native Village of Kobuk

Native Village of Kotzebue

Native Village of Noatak

Noorvik Native Community

Native Village of Selawik

Native Village of Shungnak

Sealaska

Angoon Community Association

Chilkat Indian Village (Klukwan)

Craig Community Association

Hoonah Indian Association

Hydaburg Cooperative Association

Organized Village of Kake

Organized Village of Kasaan

Klawock Cooperative Association

Organized Village of Saxman

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe

a Reported as vacant by the state of Alaska as of March 2003.
Page 58 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Army ApendxiIV

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 59 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 60 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

See comment 1.

Now on pp. 3 and 4.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 61 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

See comment 2.

Now on p. 4.

Now on pp. 5 and 6.

See comment 3.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 62 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 63 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Now on p. 17.

Now on pp. 19 and 20.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 64 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Now on p. 22.

Now on p. 26.

Now on p. 29.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 65 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Now on p. 34.

Now on p. 37.

Now on p. 39.

Now on p. 42.

Now on p. 44.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 66 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Now on p. 44.

See comment 4.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 67 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the Army

Page 68 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

GAO’s Comments The Army commented on our alternative to expand the role of the Denali 

Commission, which is discussed in the Agency Comments and Our 

Evaluation section of this report. We also modified the report on the basis 

of the technical comments that the Army gave us, as appropriate. In 

addition, discussed below are GAO’s corresponding detailed responses to 

some of the Army’s comments.

1. We disagree with the Corps’ statement that the Flood Control Act of 

1936 requires benefits to exceed costs for flood control projects. The 

pertinent provision of the act states that “it is the sense of Congress 

that . . . the Federal Government should improve or participate in the 

improvement of navigable waters or their tributaries . . . if the 

benefits . . . are in excess of the estimated costs.” 33 U.S.C. § 701a. This 

provision, while setting out a statement of Congressional policy, does 

not establish a legal requirement that benefits exceed costs, nor does it 

prohibit carrying out a project where costs exceed benefits. We have 

included a reference to this provision in the report’s discussion of the 

Corps’ guidelines for evaluating water resource projects.

2. We agree that it is not realistic for a village to go without a health clinic 

for 10 years. Our report states that development and maintenance of 

critical infrastructure, such as health clinics and runways, is necessary 

as villages find ways to address flooding and erosion. However, given 

limited federal funds, agencies must explore potentially less costly 

options for meeting a village’s needs until it is able to relocate. 

3. As noted in our report, if Congress decides to provide additional federal 

assistance to Alaska Native villages, it may wish to consider directing 

relevant executive agencies as well as the Denali Commission to assess 

the cost and policy implications of implementing the alternatives.

4. The names for the Alaska Native entities used in appendix III of this 

report are from the official list of federally recognized Indian entities 

published by the Department of the Interior in the Federal Register (see 

67 Fed. Reg. 46328, July 12, 2002). 
Page 69 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 70 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Now on p. 29.

Now on pp. 34 and 35.
Page 71 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Appendix VI

Comments from the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development ApendxiVI
Page 72 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Appendix VII

Comments from the Denali Commission ApendxiVI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix VII

Comments from the Denali Commission

Page 73 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix VII

Comments from the Denali Commission

Page 74 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

GAO’s Comments The Denali Commission commented on our recommendation and the 

alternative to expand its role, both of which are discussed in the Agency 

Comments and Our Evaluation section of this report. In addition, discussed 

below are GAO’s corresponding detailed responses to some of the Denali 

Commission’s general comments.

1. We agree that the Corps can determine whether preventing or 

minimizing flooding and erosion is technically and financially feasible. 

Under the Tribal Partnership Program, authorized by section 203 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Pub. L. No. 106-541, 114 

Stat. 2572, 2588-2589 (2000)), the Corps is currently examining impacts 

of coastal erosion due to continued climate change and other factors in 

the Alaska Native villages of Bethel, Dillingham, Shishmaref, Kaktovik, 

Kivalina, Unalakleet and Newtok. Congress provided $2 million for 

these activities in fiscal year 2003. However, other federal agencies, 

such as the NRCS, also have the ability to conduct feasibility analyses. 

2. We acknowledge the commission’s desire for a larger role for Alaska 

state and local governments in developing and executing response 

strategies and in helping to prioritize the use of scarce resources. 

However, whether or not the state and local governments choose to 

expend their own resources to become more involved in responding to 

flooding and erosion issues is entirely a state or local government 

decision. Since this decision would involve the expenditure of state or 

local government funds, rather than federal funds, it is outside the 

scope of our report. 
Page 75 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Appendix VIII

Comments from the State of Alaska ApendxiVI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.

Comments for the Denali 

Commission are in 

appendix VII.
Appendix VIII

Comments from the State of Alaska

Page 76 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

See comment 1.

Now on p. 26.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 42.

Now on p. 43.
Appendix VIII

Comments from the State of Alaska

Page 77 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages
Appendix VIII

Comments from the State of Alaska

Page 78 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Now on pp. 3, 22, and 23.

Now on pp. 4 and 26.

Now on pp. 2 and 13.

Now on p. 32.
Appendix VIII

Comments from the State of Alaska

Page 79 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Now on pp. 4, 29, and 32.

Now on p. 26.

Now on p. 26.
Appendix VIII

Comments from the State of Alaska

Page 80 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Now on p. 32.
Appendix VIII

Comments from the State of Alaska

Page 81 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

GAO’s Comments The state of Alaska provided technical comments from the Division of 

Emergency Services and the Department of Community and Economic 

Development, which we incorporated as appropriate. In addition, 

discussed below are GAO’s corresponding detailed responses to some of 

the state’s comments.

1. The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the military construction 

appropriation bill directed GAO to study at least six Alaska Native 

villages affected by flooding and erosion—Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, 

Kivalina, Point Hope, and Unalakleet—we added three more—

Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref—based on discussions with 

congressional staff and with federal and Alaska state officials familiar 

with flooding and erosion problems.1

 As our report states, four of the 

nine villages, Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok and Shishmaref are in 

imminent danger from flooding and erosion. We agree that the 

remaining five villages may not be the most at risk from flooding and 

erosion. 

2. It is not our intent to expand the role of the Denali Commission to 

include a disaster response and recovery component. 

1

H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-731, at 15 (2002).
Page 82 GAO-04-142 Flooding and Erosion in Alaska Native Villages

Appendix IX

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIX

GAO Contacts Anu Mittal, (202) 512-3841

Jeffery D. Malcolm, (202) 512-6536

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, José Alfredo Gómez, Judith Williams, 

and Ned Woodward made key contributions to this report. Also 

contributing to the report were Mark Bondo, John Delicath, Chase Huntley, 

Marmar Nadji, Cynthia Norris, and Amy Webbink. 

(360300)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00