Alaska Native Villages: Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion Have Difficulty Qualifying for Federal Assistance
Published: 2004-06-29T00:00:00

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 meet infrastructure needs in rural Alaska communities. This testimony is based on GAO's report, Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance ( GAO-04-142 , December 12, 2003). Specifically, GAO identified (1) the number of Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion, (2) the extent to which federal assistance has been provided to those villages, (3) the efforts of nine villages to respond to flooding and erosion, and (4) 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 caused in part by rising temperatures. Small and remote Alaska Native villages have generally not received federal assistance under federal flooding and erosion programs largely because they do not meet program eligibility criteria. Even villages that do meet the eligibility criteria may still not receive assistance if they cannot meet the cost-share requirements for the project. Of the nine villages that GAO reviewed, 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. GAO, other federal and state officials, and village representatives identified alternatives that could increase service delivery for Alaska Native villages. These alternatives include (1) expanding the role of the Denali Commission; (2) directing federal agencies to consider social and environmental factors in analyzing project costs and benefits; (3) waiving the federal cost-sharing requirement for these projects; (4) authorizing the "bundling" of funds from various federal agencies. Although the Denali Commission and two federal agencies raised questions about expanding the role of the Denali Commission in commenting on GAO's report, GAO still believes it continues to be a possible alternative for helping to mitigate the barriers that villages face in obtaining federal services.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on Alaska Native  villages affected by flooding and erosion. As you know, Alaska’s shorelines  and riverbanks serve as home to over 200 Native villages whose  inhabitants generally hunt and fish for subsistence. However, these  shorelines and riverbanks can be subject to periodic, yet severe flooding  and erosion. 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. Several federal  and state agencies are directly or indirectly involved in providing  assistance for flooding and erosion in Alaska. In addition to government  agencies, the Denali Commission, created by Congress in 1998, is charged  with addressing crucial needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly  isolated Alaska Native villages, although it is not directly responsible for  responding to flooding and erosion.
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 December 2003, we reported on Alaska Native  villages’ access to federal flooding and erosion programs. These programs  are administered by several federal agencies, but principally by the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers and the Agriculture Department’s Natural  Resources Conservation Service. Our report discussed four alternatives  that could help mitigate the barriers that villages face in obtaining federal  services. Our testimony today is based on that report and focuses on (1)  the number of Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion, (2)  the extent to which federal assistance has been provided to those villages,  (3) the efforts of nine villages to respond to flooding and erosion, and (4)  alternatives that Congress may wish to consider when providing  assistance for flooding and erosion of Alaska Native villages.
To meet these objectives, we reviewed federal and state flooding and  erosion studies and project documents and interviewed federal and state  agency officials and representatives from nine Alaska Native villages. We  also visited four of the nine villages. While the conference report 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 state officials familiar with flooding and erosion  problems. Our December 2003 report, on which this testimony is based,  was prepared in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
In summary, we reported the following:    First, 184 out of 213, or 86 percent of Alaska Native villages experience  some level of flooding and erosion, according to federal and state  officials in Alaska. Native villages on the coast or along rivers have long  been 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 delay formation of protective shore ice, 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.
Second, small and remote Alaska Native villages often fail to qualify for  assistance under federal flooding and erosion programs because they  do not meet program eligibility 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 economic benefits as currently  defined. 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 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.
Third, of the nine villages that we reviewed, 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. The five villages not currently 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.
Fourth, federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska Native village  representatives that we spoke with identified the following three  alternatives that could help mitigate barriers to villages’ obtaining  federal services: (1) expand the role of the Denali Commission to  include responsibility for managing a new flooding and erosion  assistance program, (2) direct the federal agencies to consider social  and environmental factors in their cost benefit analyses for these  projects, and (3) waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for  flooding and erosion programs for Alaska Native villages. In addition,  we identified as a fourth alternative 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  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, in our  report we suggested the Congress consider directing relevant federal  agencies and the Denali Commission to assess the feasibility of each of  the alternatives, as appropriate. In commenting on our report, the  Denali Commission and two federal agencies raised questions about  expanding the Denali Commission’s role to cover flooding and erosion.  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 this should be accomplished or by whom. As a result, we  continue to believe that expanding the role of the commission is a  viable alternative.
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 of 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 through wave action,  ocean currents, storms, and river deposits and is subject to periodic, yet  often 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 further south, eventually becoming  discontinuous. 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. However, rising  temperatures in recent years have led to widespread thawing of the  permafrost, causing serious damage. As permafrost melts, land slumps and  erodes, buildings and runways sink, and bulk fuel tank areas are  threatened. (See fig. 2.)
Rising temperatures have also affected the thickness, extent, and duration  of sea ice that forms along the western and northern coasts. Loss of sea  ice leaves coasts more vulnerable to waves, storm surges, and erosion.  When combined with the thawing of permafrost along the coast, loss of  sea ice seriously threatens 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 themselves too far away to be hunted.
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. 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 1 below lists and describes the five  authorities under the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program that address  flooding and erosion, while table 2 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.
A number of other federal agencies, such as the Departments of  Transportation, Homeland Security (Federal Emergency Management  Agency), and Housing and Urban Development, also have programs that  can assist Alaska Native villages in responding to the consequences of  flooding by funding tasks such as moving homes, repairing roads and  boardwalks, or rebuilding airport runways. In additional 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.
On the state side, Alaska’s 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.
section_title: Most Alaska Native Villages Are Affected to Some Extent by Flooding and Erosion
paragraphs: Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 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. (See fig.  3.) 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. In the case of Kivalina, the  community has experienced frequent 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 containing ice.  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.
Flooding and erosion are long-standing problems in Alaska. In Bethel,  Unalakleet, and Shishmaref for example, these problems have been well  documented 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 given priority in the 1984 report as still needing assistance.
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 that we  contacted 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.
While flooding and erosion 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.
section_title: Alaska Native Villages Have Difficulty Qualifying for Federal Assistance
paragraphs: Alaska Native villages have difficulty qualifying for assistance under the  key federal flooding and erosion programs, largely because of program  requirements that the project costs not exceed economic benefits, or  because of cost-sharing requirements. For example, according to the  Corps’ guidelines for evaluating water resource projects, the Corps  generally cannot undertake a project whose costs exceed its expected  economic benefits as currently defined. With few exceptions, Alaska  Native villages’ requests for the Corps’ assistance are denied because of  the Corps’ determination that project costs outweigh the expected  economic benefits. Alaska Native villages have difficulty meeting the  cost/benefit requirement because many 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. However, the Corps  decided not to fund an erosion project for this village because the cost of  the project exceeded 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.  Meeting the cost/benefit requirement is especially difficult for remote  Alaska Native villages because the cost of construction is high—largely  because labor, equipment, and materials have to be brought in from  distant locations.
Even villages that do meet the Corps’ cost/benefit criteria may still not  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, they may need to pay  hundreds of thousands of dollars or more under these cost-share  requirements to fund their portion of a project—funding many of them do  not have.
NRCS has three key programs that can provide assistance to villages to  protect against flooding and erosion. One program—the Watershed  Protection and Flood Prevention Program—has a cost/benefit requirement  similar to the Corps program and as a result, few projects for Alaska  Native villages have been funded under this program. In contrast, some  villages have been able to qualify for assistance from NRCS’s two other  programs—the Emergency Watershed Protection Program and the  Conservation Technical Assistance Program. For example, under its  Emergency Watershed Protection Program, NRCS 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 the importance of protecting the  subsistence lifestyle of an Alaska Native village can be included as one of  these factors. In addition, while NRCS encourages cost sharing by local  communities, this requirement can be waived when the local community  cannot afford to pay for a project under this program. 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. 4.)  Another NRCS official in Alaska estimated that about 25 villages requested  assistance under this program during the last 5 years, and 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 and therefore  ineligible for the program.
Unlike any of the Corps’ or NRCS’s other programs, NRCS’s Conservation  Technical Assistance Program does not require any cost-benefit analysis  for projects 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 help  communities and individuals 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 to developing planning,  design, and/or engineering documents. The program does not fund  construction or implementation of projects.
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. 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 planning  process for relocation. Because of the high cost of construction 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  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. Of the five villages  not currently 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  planning to repair and extend an existing seawall to protect the village’s  dock from river erosion. In fiscal year 2003, the Senate Committee on  Appropriations directed the Corps to perform an analysis of costs  associated with continued erosion of six of these nine villages, potential  costs of relocating the villages, and to identify the expected timeline for  complete failure of useable land associated with each community. Table  3 summarizes the status of the nine villages’ efforts to respond to their  specific flooding and erosion problems.
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 project costs 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 new 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, we 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 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.
In conclusion, Alaska Native villages are being increasingly affected by  flooding and erosion problems being worsened at least to some degree by  climatological changes. They must nonetheless find ways to respond to  these problems. Many Alaska Native villages that are small, remote, and  have a subsistence lifestyle, lack the resources to address the problems on  their own. Yet villages have difficulty finding assistance under several  federal programs, because as currently defined 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. Given the unique circumstances  of Alaska Native villages, special measures may be required to ensure that  these communities receive the assistance they need to respond to  problems that could continue to increase.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee my have  at this time.
section_title: Contact and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information, please contact Anu Mittal on (202) 512-3841.  Individuals making key contributions to this testimony and the report on  which it was based were José Alfredo Gómez, Jeffery Malcolm, Cynthia  Norris, Amy Webbink, and Judith Williams.
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.