Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance
Published: 2003-12-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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: (1) expand the role of the Denali Commission; (2) direct federal agencies to consider social and environmental factors in their cost/benefit analyses; (3) waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for these projects, and (4) authorize the "bundling" of funds from various federal agencies.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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, particularly isolated Alaska Native villages. 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.   (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.
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.)
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.
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. 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). 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.
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. 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Multiple Entities Make Up the Alaska Native Village Governing Structure
paragraphs: 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. 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. (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.)
section_title: Several Federal and State Agencies Are Responsible for Responding to Flooding and Erosion
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Most Alaska Native Villages Are Affected to Some Extent by Flooding and Erosion
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Coastal or River Flooding and Erosion Affects 86 Percent of Alaska Native Villages
paragraphs: 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.
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 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 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.)
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. This list  identified 169 of the 213 Alaska Native villages, virtually the same villages  identified by federal and state officials that we consulted in 2003. In  addition, the state appointed an Erosion Control Task Force in 1983 to  investigate and inventory potential erosion problems and to prioritize  erosion sites by severity and need. In its January 1984 final report, the task  force identified a total of 30 priority communities with erosion problems.  Of these 30 communities, 28 are Alaska Native villages. Federal and state  officials that we spoke with in 2003 also identified almost all of the Native  communities 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.
section_title: Quantifiable Data Are Not Available to Fully Assess the Severity of the Problem
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.
section_title: Federal Flooding and Erosion Programs Provide Limited Assistance to Alaska Native Villages; Some State Programs Are Also Available
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Federal Programs Are Available to Respond to Problems Associated with Flooding and Erosion
paragraphs: 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.
In addition to the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program, other Corps  authorities that may address problems related to flooding and erosion  include the following:  Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, which  provides authority for the Corps to assist states in the preparation of  comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, and conservation  of water and related resources of drainage basins.
Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960, which allows the Corps’  Flood Plain Management Services’ Program to provide states and local  governments technical services and planning guidance that is needed to  support effective flood plain management.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Qualifying for Some NRCS Programs Is Less Difficult
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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 cost- share of an erosion protection project and was not successful. Eventually,  NRCS waived the cost-share requirement for the village and covered the  total cost of the project itself. (See fig. 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 one- time events—such as repairing damage caused by a large storm—rather  than addressing recurring flooding and erosion.
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. 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  advice or consultation services to developing planning, design, and/or  engineering documents. The program does not fund the construction or  implementation of a project.
section_title: Alaska State Programs Are Also Available to Respond to Flooding and Erosion
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Four Villages in Imminent Danger Are Planning to Relocate, and the Remaining Five Villages Are Taking Other Actions
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Four Villages in Imminent Danger Are Making Plans to Relocate
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Kivalina
paragraphs: 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  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.
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.
section_title: Shishmaref
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
section_title: Newtok
paragraphs: 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. 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 into law in November 2003. In anticipation of a move, the village is  studying the soils and geology of the proposed relocation site to determine  its suitability.
section_title: Koyukuk
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Five Villages Are Conducting Flooding and Erosion Studies or Improving Infrastructure
paragraphs: The remaining five villages, while not in imminent danger, do experience  serious flooding and erosion and are undertaking various infrastructure- specific 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.
subsections: section_title: Kaktovik
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Point Hope
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Unalakleet
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Bethel
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Federal Agencies Are Investing in Infrastructure without Knowledge of Villages’ Relocation Plans
paragraphs: 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).
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  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.
section_title: Alternatives for Addressing Barriers That Villages Face in Obtaining Federal Services
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Expand the Role of the Denali Commission
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Direct the Corps and NRCS to Include Social and Environmental Factors in Their Cost/Benefit Analyses
paragraphs: 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  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. 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 surface- accessible 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.
section_title: Waive the Federal Cost- Sharing Requirement for Flooding and Erosion Projects
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Authorize Bundling of Funds from Various Agencies to Respond to Flooding and Erosion Problems
paragraphs: 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. Many  Alaska Native villages participate in this program.
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. 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.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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,  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  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.
section_title: Objectives, Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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.
We identified federal flooding and erosion programs by searching the  Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and by using other information.
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.
section_title: ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofit Arms
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: List of 184 Affected Alaska Native Villages by ANCSA Region
paragraphs: Cheesh-Na Tribe (formerly the Native Village of Chistochina)
Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove Native Village of Atka Native Village of BelkofskiNative Village of False Pass Native Village of Nelson Lagoon Native Village of Nikolski Pauloff Harbor VillageSaint 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 UngaNative 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 Native Village of Brevig Mission Chinik Eskimo Community (Golovin)
Native Village of Diomede (aka Inalik) King Island Native CommunityNative Village of Saint Michael Native Village of White Mountain Native Village of Chignik Lagoon Village of Clark’s Point  Curyung Tribal Council (formerly Native Village of Dillingham)
New Koliganek Village Council (formerly Koliganek Village)
Native Village of Perryville Native Village of Pilot Point Native Village of Port Heiden Portage Creek Village (aka Ohgsenakale)
Algaaciq Native Village (St. Mary's)
Asa'carsarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Mountain Village)
Native Village of Chuathbaluk (Russian Mission, Kuskokwim)
Native Village of Goodnews Bay Native Village of Hooper Bay Iqurmuit Traditional Council (formerly Native Village of Russian Mission)
Native Village of Kwinhagak (aka Quinhagak)
Lime Village Native Village of Marshall (aka Fortuna Ledge)
Nunakauyarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Toksook Bay)
Orutsararmuit Native Village (aka Bethel)
Native Village of Pitka's Point Native Village of Scammon Bay Native Village of Chanega (aka Chenega)
Native Village of Eyak (Cordova)
Native Village of Nanwalek (aka English Bay)
Alatna Village Birch Creek Tribe (formerly listed as Birch Creek Village)
Evansville Village (aka Bettles Field)
Native Village of Fort Yukon Galena Village (aka Louden Village)
Organized Village of Grayling (aka Holikachuk)
Koniag Village of AfognakNative Village of Akhiok Native Village of Larsen Bay Chilkat Indian Village (Klukwan)
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Army
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Comments
paragraphs: 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).
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Comments from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
section_title: Comments from the Denali Commission
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Comments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Comments from the State of Alaska
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Comments
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: 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 full- text 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.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs