Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion
Published: 2009-06-03T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In December 2003, GAO reported that most of Alaska's more than 200 Native villages were affected to some degree by flooding and erosion (GAO-04-142). Since 2003, state officials have identified the growing impacts of climate change, increasing the urgency of federal and state efforts to identify imminently threatened villages and assess their relocation options. GAO was asked to report on (1) the flooding and erosion threats that Alaska Native villages currently face, (2) the federal programs that are available to assist villages facing potential disasters, (3) the status of village relocation efforts, and (4) how federal assistance to relocating villages is prioritized. GAO interviewed and gathered documentation from federal and state agency officials as well as regional organizations and village representatives.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While the flooding and erosion threats to Alaska Native villages have not been completely assessed, since 2003, federal, state, and village officials have identified 31 villages that face imminent threats. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) March 2009 Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment identified many villages threatened by erosion, but did not assess flooding impacts. At least 12 of the 31 threatened villages have decided to relocate--in part or entirely--or to explore relocation options. Federal programs to assist threatened villages prepare for and recover from disasters and to protect and relocate them are limited and unavailable to some villages. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has several disaster preparedness and recovery programs, but villages often fail to qualify for them, generally because they may lack approved disaster mitigation plans or have not been declared federal disaster areas. Although there is no single comprehensive proactive federal program to assist villages with their relocation efforts, individual federal agencies can assist villages on specific projects, such as funding the construction or relocation of homes. However, 64 villages do not qualify for affordable housing and relocation assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant program because the federal law governing the program does not recognize unincorporated Alaska Native villages in Alaska's unorganized borough as eligible units of general local government. Of the 12 villages exploring relocation options, Newtok has made the most progress in its relocation efforts. The Newtok Planning Group, formed in 2006 by federal, state, regional, and village partners, has helped to accelerate the relocation process that the village proactively initiated in 1994. The 3 other villages that will likely need to relocate all at once--Kivalina, Shaktoolik, and Shishmaref--have yet to identify sites that federal, state, and village officials agree are safe, sustainable, and desirable for the subsistence lifestyle of the villagers. Eight other villages have begun to gradually migrate to new locations over time or are evaluating options for doing so. In the absence of a lead entity, federal agencies individually prioritize assistance to villages on the basis of their programs' criteria. These criteria do not necessarily ensure that the villages in greatest peril get the highest priority, and although the Corps has assessed erosion threats, there is no lead federal entity to prioritize and coordinate assistance using this information. In 2007, the Newtok Planning Group reported that the lack of designated federal and state lead entities to guide, coordinate, and fund assistance impeded village relocation efforts and created uncertainty regarding the fulfillment of environmental analysis requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act. In 2008, the state designated a lead agency for village relocation assistance, and federal, state, and village officials told GAO that a similar lead federal entity is needed. Lead authority could be provided to an existing agency or commission, or a new entity could be formed for this purpose.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In December 2003, we reported that most of Alaska’s more than 200 Native  villages were affected to some degree by flooding and erosion, most  commonly caused by severe storm events on Alaska’s coastline or by river  flooding, such as during the spring breakup of river ice. Flooding and  erosion have caused millions of dollars of property damage in these  remote villages and, in some cases, pose imminent threats to lives, homes,  and infrastructure. While federal and state agencies administer programs  for constructing flooding and erosion control projects in threatened  villages, some villages must relocate to safer locations due to the severity  of the problems. In 2003, we examined flooding problems in 9 villages and  identified 4—Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref—that were in  imminent danger and were planning to relocate to less vulnerable sites, a  daunting process that was expected to take many years to complete. We  found that successful relocation efforts would involve collaboration  among multiple federal and state entities and the villages, and we reported  on alternatives for addressing barriers that villages face in obtaining  federal services to mitigate flooding and erosion threats.
Since 2003, state officials have identified the growing impacts of climate  change in Alaska—which include melting polar ice, increasing storm  intensity, and coastal flooding—increasing the urgency of federal and state  efforts to identify imminently threatened villages and assess their  relocation options. In 2004, a congressional committee directed the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to conduct an Alaska erosion baseline  study to coordinate and plan assistance for Alaska villages with the  greatest need and to provide an overall assessment on the priority of  which villages should receive assistance. In September 2007, Alaska’s  Governor established the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet to lead the  preparation and implementation of an Alaska climate change strategy.  Within the sub-cabinet, an Immediate Action Workgroup was created for  the early assessment and development of an action plan addressing  climate change impacts on coastal and other vulnerable communities in  Alaska. While such efforts have begun to address the immediate needs of  some of the most imminently threatened villages, many challenges remain.  An October 11, 2007, congressional field hearing in Anchorage, Alaska, of  the Senate Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery, Committee on  Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, identified the obstacles  faced by federal agencies and villages. These obstacles include the  inability of many villages to meet the financial and other criteria for  federal assistance, the high cost of implementing protection or relocation  projects for the remote communities, and the lack of scientific erosion  data for sound decision making.
At your request, this report updates our 2003 report and the status of  village relocation efforts. Specifically, we are reporting on (1) the flooding  and erosion threats that Alaska Native villages currently face, (2) the  federal programs that are available to assist villages facing potential  disasters, (3) the status of village relocation efforts, and (4) how federal  assistance to relocating villages is prioritized.
To determine the flooding and erosion threats that Alaska Native villages  currently face and the status of village relocation efforts, we visited the  villages of Alatna, Allakaket, Kivalina, Koyukuk, Shaktoolik, Shishmaref,  and Unalakleet and spoke by telephone with representatives from the  villages of Chefornak, Golovin, Hughes, Huslia, Newtok, Nulato, and  Teller. We selected these villages on the basis of information from a  variety of federal, state, and other sources. We also met with and collected  information from federal agency officials of the Corps; the Department of  the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land  Management, and the National Park Service; and the Department of  Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). We met  with members of the Immediate Action Workgroup of the Alaska  Governor’s Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change, including officials from the  state Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development  (DCCED); Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management;  and Department of Environmental Conservation. We also met with  officials of Alaska regional authorities, such as the Northwest Arctic  Borough; regional Native organizations, such as the Tanana Chiefs  Conference; and the Denali Commission. While we did not independently  assess villages’ flooding and erosion threats, we did attempt to identify the  universe of villages exploring relocation options to address their repetitive  flooding and erosion problems. We supplemented the Corps’ list of  imminently threatened villages with additional villages that are also  exploring relocation options.
To determine the federal programs that are available to assist villages  facing potential disasters, we met with officials from additional federal  agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal  Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Interior’s Bureau of Indian  Affairs, the Department of Health and Human Service’s Indian Health  Service, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and  the Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration. We  reviewed applicable federal laws, regulations, and guidance for these  programs. We also spoke with officials from Native Corporations, such as  Kawerak, Inc., and Native village representatives, to determine what  federal assistance has been provided or requested. To determine how  federal assistance to relocating villages is prioritized, we reviewed  documentation of past, present, and planned efforts to prioritize  assistance to villages by all of the federal, state, and other entities with  which we met. We also asked federal agency officials to explain their  prioritization processes and the challenges that they face in providing  assistance to relocating villages.
We assessed the reliability of the federal and state data that we used and  found them to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We  conducted this performance audit from June 2008 to June 2009, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Alaska is the largest state in the union—encompassing 586,412 square  miles, it is one-fifth the size of the lower 48 contiguous states combined.  The state is bounded on three sides by saltwater bodies—the Beaufort and  Chukchi Seas to the north, the Bering Sea to the west, and the Gulf of  Alaska to the south (see fig. 1). Measured on the most detailed maps  available, including islands, Alaska has 33,904 miles of shoreline. In  addition, there are more than 3,000 rivers in Alaska, including the major  interior river systems of the Yukon and the Kuskokwim Rivers.
Despite its size, Alaska is one of the least populated states, with about  680,000 people—90,000, or about 13 percent, of which are Alaska Natives.  Many Alaska Natives live in places long inhabited by their ancestors in  rural areas in western, northern, and interior Alaska. Alaska 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). Many of these Alaska Natives live in villages near the sea  or river waters, which they rely on to hunt, fish, and gather wild plants for  food. These subsistence activities are intricately woven into the fabric of  their lives and form the foundation for continuity between generations by  promoting the basic values of Alaska Native culture—generosity, respect  for elders, self-esteem for the successful hunters, and community  cooperation.
Typically, a coastal or river Native village has a population of a couple of  hundred people and generally contains only basic infrastructure—homes;  school; village store; health clinic; church; city or tribal offices; post office;  and washateria that provides laundry, shower, and toilet facilities for a fee  to residents of villages without running water. Most of the villages are not  accessible by roads; instead, they have an airport runway adjacent or  nearby that provides the only year-round access to the community. 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 a tannery or fish processing plant. Most river villages  also have a barge landing area where goods are delivered to the  community during the ice-free period.
While villages on Alaska’s shorelines and river banks provide Alaska  Natives with access to food, transportation, and recreational and cultural  benefits, these locations also present dangers to the inhabitants. In  particular, these dangers include flooding—in coastal communities, from  seismic activity, such as tsunamis associated with earthquakes, erosion,  and surges from coastal storms, or in river communities, from heavy  rainfall, snow melt, or the sudden release of water from behind breaking  ice jams. According to the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and  Emergency Management, since 1978, there have been 228 flooding events  that have led to state disaster declarations for 119 different Alaska  communities. About 40 percent of these flood disasters occurred from  2000 to 2008, with 23 occurring in 2005, the worst year on record. Figure 2  shows the 2005 state flooding disaster in Golovin, on Alaska’s northwest  coast.
The effects of climate change are believed by state officials to be growing  in Alaska, potentially having the greatest impacts on the already  vulnerable Alaska Native villages and the subsistence lifestyles of their  inhabitants. Permafrost (permanently frozen subsoil), which is found over  approximately 80 percent of Alaska and in northern barrier island  communities, literally helps to hold the land together. Rising temperatures  in recent years have led to widespread thawing of permafrost, causing  village shorelines and riverbanks to slump and erode, threatening homes  and infrastructure. Rising temperatures also affect the thickness, extent,  and duration of sea ice that forms along the western and northern coasts.  The loss of sea ice leaves shorelines more vulnerable to waves and storm  surges and, coupled with the thawing permafrost along the coasts,  accelerates the erosion threatening Alaska Native villages (see fig. 3). In  addition, the loss of sea ice changes 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 out of hunting range.
The state of Alaska’s government structure that may interact with Native  villages to help them meet their needs, including making decisions about  how to address flooding and erosion, may involve several distinct entities.  Alaska’s constitution and state laws allow for several types of regional and  local government units—such as boroughs, which are units of government  that are similar to the counties found in many other states. About one-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.” Of 213 Alaska Native villages, 147 (or 69 percent)  are located within the 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. In other cases, the tribal  government may be the only form of local government if the village (1) is  located in the unorganized borough and (2) is not an incorporated city;  however, these tribal governments are not political subdivisions of the  state.
Alaska’s Governor and DCCED have taken the lead for the state in  addressing flooding and erosion threats to Alaska Native communities.  The Immediate Action Workgroup of the Governor’s Sub-Cabinet on  Climate Change is responsible for the early assessment and development  of an action plan addressing climate change impacts on coastal and other  vulnerable communities in Alaska. The workgroup is cochaired by state  and federal representatives from DCCED and the Corps, and includes  representatives from other key state agencies as well as the Denali  Commission, a federal-state cooperative entity. In April 2008, the  workgroup provided its initial recommendations for actions—including  relocation planning—that should be taken in the ensuing 12 to 18 months  to prevent the loss of life and property in Alaska’s communities at greatest  peril from the effects of climate change. The workgroup updated those  recommendations in March 2009. DCCED is responsible for coordinating  and directing state agencies in providing relocation assistance to villages.
As we reported in 2003, there is no single federal agency responsible for  managing and funding flooding and erosion programs in Alaska. Instead,  the Corps and NRCS administer key programs for constructing flooding  and erosion control projects to protect threatened villages from further  damage, and other federal agencies operate programs that can address the  consequences of flooding and erosion by, for example, repairing roads or  rebuilding airport runways. In 2003, congressional committees  acknowledged the impacts on Alaskan villages due to climate change and  directed the Corps to assess the erosion threat and estimate relocation  costs for 7 coastal villages—Bethel, Dillingham, Kaktovik, Kivalina,  Newtok, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet. The Corps completed the Alaska  Village Erosion Technical Assistance program assessment in April 2006,  and estimated that the villages of Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref have  10 years to 15 years before their current locations are lost to erosion, and  that the cost to relocate these villages ranged from between $80 million  and $200 million each. In 2004, a congressional committee directed the  Corps to conduct an Alaska erosion baseline study. In addition, the Corps  was provided with authority “to carry out, at full federal expense,  structural and non-structural projects for storm damage prevention and  reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial damage in Alaska, including  relocation of affected communities and construction of replacement  facilities.” However, this authority was repealed in March 2009.
The extent to which additional villages may need to relocate as the  impacts of climate change increase and of how federal agencies in  collaboration with state agencies can assist the villages in their relocation  efforts was discussed in an October 11, 2007, congressional field hearing.  Testimony was provided by representatives from the Corps; FEMA; the  state of Alaska’s Division of Homeland Security and Emergency  Management; and the villages of Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, and  Unalakleet. The federal agency representatives described how their  programs have provided assistance to villages and the challenges they face  in prioritizing and coordinating assistance with other federal agencies, the  state, and the villages. The senators at the hearing also explored with the  witnesses ways to expedite assistance to villages (e.g., by waiving the  National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requirement for  environmental analyses of the impacts of federal projects) and to  improve project coordination (e.g., by appointing a coordinator for all  federal agencies to work with state and local partners to assist villages  needing immediate action).
Under NEPA, agencies evaluate the likely environmental effects of  projects they are proposing by using an environmental assessment or, if  the projects likely would significantly affect the environment, a more  detailed environmental impact statement. If an agency determines that the  activities of a proposed project fall within a category of activities that the  agency has already determined has no significant environmental impact— called a categorical exclusion—then the agency generally need not  prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.  In the event that more than one federal agency is involved in the same  action or involved in a group of actions directly related to each other,  NEPA regulations require that a lead agency supervise the preparation of  the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. NEPA  analysis can occur at both the programmatic and project levels. At the  programmatic level, larger-scale, combined effects and cumulative effects  can be evaluated and addressed, and overall management objectives are  defined. At the project level, the analysis of the effects of a particular  action, in a place, at a particular time are addressed. The Council on  Environmental Quality, which oversees the implementation of NEPA and  reviews and approves federal agency NEPA procedures, has issued  regulations governing federal agencies’ implementation of NEPA. In  emergency circumstances, however, the federal agency can take action to  control the immediate impact of the emergency without observing these  regulations, but must consult with the council for alternative arrangements  for NEPA compliance.
section_title: The Flooding and Erosion Threats to Villages Have Not Been Completely Assessed, but Some Threatened Villages Are Exploring Relocation Options
paragraphs: While the flooding and erosion threats to Alaska Native villages have not  been completely assessed, a growing number of imminently threatened  villages have been identified, and some have decided to relocate or are  exploring relocation options. Since our 2003 report, federal, state, and  village officials have identified 31 villages that face imminent threats. At  least 12 of the 31 imminently threatened villages have decided to  relocate—in part or entirely—or to explore relocation options.
subsections: section_title: Thirty-one Imminently Threatened Villages Have Been Identified, but the Threat Assessment Is Incomplete
paragraphs: In December 2003, we reported that flooding and erosion affect 184 of 213  (or about 86 percent) Alaska Native villages to some extent, and that the  villages of Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref were in imminent  danger from flooding and erosion and were planning to relocate. Since our  2003 report, federal, state, and village officials have identified 31 villages  that are imminently threatened by flooding and erosion (see table 1).
The 31 imminently threatened villages are located throughout the state of  Alaska’s river and coastal areas (see fig. 4). “A field hearing was held in Anchorage, Alaska on June 29 and 30, 2004, on the impacts of  severe erosion and flooding on Alaska Native villages. There is no Federal or State agency  to coordinate and assist these communities in the relocation or in the interim provide  preventative measures to slow the effects of the erosion and flooding. The conference finds  there is a need for an Alaska erosion baseline study to coordinate and plan the appropriate  responses and assistance for Alaska villages in the most need and to provide an overall  assessment on the priority of which villages should receive assistance. Therefore, the  conference has provided the $2,000,000 for this study.”
The Corps identified these 26 priority communities through a process of  stakeholder meetings, research of prior reports, correspondence with  communities, and follow-up investigations of select communities. These  communities were assessed on various criteria, such as the level of threat  to critical infrastructure, human health and safety, housing, and other  factors.
However, the Corps did not assess flooding threats because, according to  Corps officials, it lacked the authority for such an assessment. While the  Conference Report language that led to the Corps assessment refers to  both flooding and erosion threats in the setup for the study, the specific  language calling for the study refers to it as “an Alaska erosion baseline  study.” As a result, the Corps interpreted this language to mean that it was  only authorized to conduct a baseline assessment of erosion threats.  Without a comprehensive assessment of both erosion and flooding threats  that villages face, federal agencies lack the necessary information on the  magnitude of the problem and on how best to prioritize and target limited  resources. For example, the village of Koyukuk, which we identified as  threatened in our 2003 report, was not included on the Corps’ list of  priority communities because it primarily suffers from repetitive flooding,  rather than erosion. The Corps’ erosion study recognizes the importance  of assessing flooding threats and recommends seeking authority to expand  the assessment scope to include flooding, so that the Corps can provide a  more comprehensive assessment of the threats that Alaska Native villages  face.
In addition to the 26 villages imminently threatened by erosion that the  Corps identified, we included 5 additional imminently threatened villages  on the basis of our current and prior work and on the work of the Alaska  Governor’s Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change Immediate Action Workgroup.  The additional villages of Allakaket, Hughes, Koyukuk, Nulato, and Teller  predominantly face flooding threats. For example, according to the Tribal  Administrator of Koyukuk, the lower-lying location of much of the village  makes it very susceptible to flooding from the Koyukuk and Yukon Rivers.  Koyukuk was also one of the imminently threatened villages identified by  the Immediate Action Workgroup’s April 2008 report. Similarly, we have  included the villages of Allakaket, Hughes, Nulato, and Teller on our list of  imminently threatened villages on the basis of our conversations with  local village or city leaders and regional tribal organizations. Specifically,  officials from the Tanana Chiefs Conference, a regional nonprofit tribal  organization that serves villages in the central interior region of Alaska,  identified Allakaket, Hughes, and Nulato as member villages that have  suffered severe or repetitive flooding or erosion impacts. Similarly,  officials from Kawarek, Incorporated, and the Bering Straits Regional  Housing Authority told us that the village of Teller has suffered repetitive  flooding and is building new homes outside of the flood area. Local leaders  confirmed the information provided to us by these regional tribal  organizations.
section_title: Twelve Imminently Threatened Villages Are Exploring Relocation Options for All of, or a Portion of, Their Existing Villages
paragraphs: According to federal, state, and village officials, at least 12 of the 31  imminently threatened villages have decided to relocate—in part or  entirely—or to explore relocation options. The villages of Kivalina,  Newtok, Shaktoolik, and Shishmaref will likely need to move all at once  and as soon as possible, since they continue to suffer flooding and erosion  and have limited emergency evacuation options (see table 2). The  remaining 8 villages that are considering relocation have the option of  gradually migrating to a safer location over time because they have access  to higher ground nearby and can move existing structures to these sites or  build new structures at the sites.
The 12 villages that are exploring relocation options are located in river  and coastal areas (see fig. 5).
section_title: Federal Disaster Programs Have Provided Limited Assistance to Villages, and No Comprehensive Relocation Program Exists
paragraphs: Federal programs to assist threatened villages prepare for and recover  from disasters and to protect and relocate them are limited and  unavailable to some villages. While FEMA administers several disaster  preparedness and recovery programs, villages often fail to qualify for these  programs. Other federal agencies have individual programs, but there is no  single comprehensive proactive federal program to assist villages with  their relocation efforts.
subsections: section_title: FEMA Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Programs Have Provided Limited Assistance to Villages
paragraphs: FEMA, the lead federal agency for disaster preparation and recovery, has  several programs that could supplement state disaster mitigation and  recovery programs, but villages have had difficulty in meeting program  requirements. FEMA’s five disaster mitigation programs and two disaster  recovery programs are summarized in table 3.
Small and remote Alaska villages often fail to qualify for assistance under  these FEMA disaster mitigation and recovery programs because (1) most  villages lack approved mitigation plans, (2) few federal disaster  declarations have been made for flooding and erosion problems, and   (3) many villages cannot participate in the National Flood Insurance  Program.
Most villages lack approved mitigation plans: Four of FEMA’s hazard  mitigation grant programs require applicants to submit mitigation plans  for FEMA’s approval to qualify for project funding, unless the grant is  intended to fund the development of such a plan. As of April 2009, only  33 Alaska Native villages had these plans in place, and, thus, they are  the only villages that can apply for these mitigation programs. Twelve  of these villages are among the 31 imminently threatened villages  identified in this report, and 5 of the villages—Golovin, Kivalina,  Koyukuk, Newtok, and Unalakleet—are exploring relocation options.  In addition, FEMA distributes its mitigation grants, with the exception  of grants to develop hazard mitigation plans, on the basis of the cost- effectiveness of the proposed project. With low populations and high  construction costs in rural Alaska, village relocation projects have low  benefit-to-cost ratios. As a result, the 33 villages that can apply for the  mitigation grant programs to fund projects also face significant  challenges to being selected for these grants, according to FEMA  officials.
Few federal disaster declarations for flooding and erosion problems:  Eligibility for FEMA’s two disaster recovery programs and the Hazard  Mitigation Grant Program is generally limited to areas that have been  declared federal disasters, but since many of the villages are facing  gradual erosion problems and have not received a declared disaster  designation, they do not qualify for these programs. Since 1953,  Alaska has had 32 federal disaster declarations. While none of these  federal disaster declarations were for erosion issues, 15 were for  flooding. However, only 4 Alaska Native villages—Alatna, Alakanuk,  Allakaket, and Shishmaref—received funding from FEMA’s Hazard  Mitigation Grant Program for relocation activities associated with the  15 flooding disaster declarations. After a 1994 flood, Alatna received  $6,322,495 to relocate the entire village to higher ground, and Allakaket  received $919,191 to build 13 temporary homes and extend its road,  power, and telephone services to higher ground. Alakanuk received  $208,898 to relocate and elevate 15 homes and 1 city building after a  2002 flood. Most recently, Shishmaref received $21,485 to relocate  1 cottage after a 2004 flood.
Many villages cannot participate in the National Flood Insurance  Program: FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, Repetitive  Flood Claims Program, and Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program  require participation in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program.
No village in the unincorporated borough qualifies for this program,  unless it is an incorporated city. FEMA’s former Administrator of  Region X also testified in 2007 that FEMA’s mitigation programs have  insufficient funds to comprehensively address the Alaska Native  villages’ erosion problem.
section_title: No Comprehensive Federal Relocation Program Exists, but Individual Agencies Are Providing Some Relocation Assistance, and Other Flooding and Erosion Mitigation Activities Are Ongoing
paragraphs: “Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Secretary of the Army is authorized to  carry out, at full Federal expense, structural and non-structural projects for storm damage  prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial damage in Alaska, including  relocation of affected communities and construction of replacement facilities.”
Despite this new authority, which was subsequently repealed in March  2009, the Corps’ role in village relocation efforts has generally remained  unchanged since our 2003 report and has been limited to evaluating  potential relocation sites for Kivalina, Koyukuk, and Shishmaref and to  designing an evacuation center and road for Newtok. Other individual  agencies have been providing planning assistance for Newtok’s relocation.
While the Corps had discretionary authority under section 117 to carry  out, at full federal expense, projects to address storm damage and erosion,  this authority was applied to few villages. Referring to this authority, in  fiscal year 2006, a congressional committee directed $2.4 million of the  Corps’ appropriation to the Alaska coastal erosion projects. The 9 villages  eligible to receive these funds were the same 9 villages covered in our  2003 report—Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, Point  Hope, Shishmaref, and Unalakeet. An additional $10 million was directed  to Alaska coastal erosion projects in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 ($5 million  per year). These funds have been used to construct shoreline barriers in  Kivalina, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet to provide temporary erosion  protection. Assistance with relocation activities has consisted of  evaluating potential relocation sites for Kivalina, Koyukuk, and  Shishmaref, and designing an evacuation center and road for Newtok.  None of these funds have been used in Barrow, Bethel, or Kaktovik, and  funding for Point Hope has been limited to the initiation of studies. Also in  fiscal year 2008, the Corps elected to assist the city of McGrath with an  erosion control project and the city of Yakutat with a flood damage  reduction study at full federal expense. Table 4 describes the Corps  projects added since 2003 to assist villages affected by flooding and  erosion.
With a few exceptions, the list of other federal programs that could assist  villages with flooding and erosion issues has mostly remained the same as  it was when we reported in 2003 (see app. I). Two notable changes have  occurred since our 2003 report. First, NRCS in 2005 amended its  Emergency Watershed Protection Program’s regulations to allow the  purchase of floodplain easements on nonagricultural land as an emergency  measure. Structures located within the easement may be demolished or  relocated outside of the floodplain. As a result of this amendment, NRCS  has funded the purchase of floodplain easements from 2 Alaska Native  villages—Evansville and McGrath. In Evansville, NRCS plans to  decommission one building and relocate another building out of the  floodplain, and in McGrath, the service plans to remove structures. Also,  NRCS’s Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program has received  no funding appropriations in the last 2 years and, thus, has been mostly  inactive, according to agency officials.
Second, an issue has arisen since our last report regarding the distribution  of funds under HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program,  which provides funding for housing, economic development, and other  community development activities, including affordable housing and  relocation assistance for displaced persons. On the basis of a March 2007  determination by HUD, a number of Alaska Native villages have been  deemed ineligible to receive funds under this program because the federal  law governing the program does not take into account Alaska’s unique  state government structure. Generally, these block grant funds are  distributed by the state to “units of general local government” that are  political subdivisions of the state. However, 64 Alaska Native villages,  including 3 imminently threatened villages (Kwigillingok, Lime Village, and  Newtok), located in the state of Alaska’s unorganized borough do not have  an incorporated municipal government. As a result, there is no unit of  local government within the state government structure to receive these  block grant funds. In an attempt to remedy this problem, in September  2006, the state requested to serve as the recipient on behalf of the  unincorporated villages in the unorganized borough. However, in March  2007, HUD determined that the state was ineligible to receive grants on  these villages’ behalf because the state was not a unit of general local  government, and this would entail the state distributing the grants to itself.  The 64 unincorporated villages in the unorganized borough are at a  competitive disadvantage for funding because they are ineligible to receive  HUD Community Development Block Grant funds through the state. While  these villages do not have a local unit of state government, they do have  tribal governments, and the tribal governments or their designated tribal  organizations do receive funds under HUD’s Indian Community  Development Block Grant. Unlike the two-thirds of the Alaska Native  villages that are eligible for both the regular Community Development  Block Grant program and the Indian Community Development Block  Grant program, these 64 villages currently face more limited funding  options to address some of the impacts of flooding and erosion in their  communities.
section_title: Most of the 12 Villages Exploring Relocation Options Have Made Limited Progress
paragraphs: Of the 12 villages exploring relocation options, only Newtok has made  significant progress among the 4 villages that will likely need to relocate  all at once. Varying levels of progress have been made by the 8 villages  that are gradually migrating to new locations over time.
subsections: section_title: Newtok Has Made the Most Progress of the 4 Villages That Will Likely Relocate All at Once
paragraphs: Newtok officials began evaluating the village’s erosion problems on the  banks of the Ninglick River in 1983, when they hired a consultant to assess  the erosion problem and evaluate options for erosion control. The  assessment found that unchecked erosion would endanger community  structures within 25 years to 30 years, and that providing full protection to  stop erosion over the length of the riverbank would be prohibitively  expensive. Figure 6 shows the most recent update of projected erosion. On  the basis of this information, the Newtok Traditional Council determined  that the village must relocate.
In 1994, the council started the relocation planning process by analyzing  six potential village relocation sites. In 1996, the village residents were  surveyed and they selected a relocation site known as Mertarvik, located  on the north end of Nelson Island approximately 9 miles southeast of  Newtok. In 2000, the council hired a planning consultant to assist in the  development of relocation plans, and the site layout and transportation  plan for the selected relocation site was completed in 2001. In 2002, the  Corps assessed the site and confirmed that it was feasible for community  development. In 2003, Congress approved a land exchange between the  Newtok Native Corporation and Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to  provide the relocation site, which is within the Yukon Delta National  Wildlife Refuge.
According to village, federal, and state officials, the commitment of the  village residents to relocate and the proactive approach of the village have  been major contributors to the progress made by Newtok. For example,  subsequent to the initial site selection survey, the village conducted two  additional surveys, most recently confirming in 2003 that 92 percent of the  villagers favored the selected site. The results and methodology of this  survey are documented in the January 2004 Newtok Background for  Relocation Report prepared for the Newtok Traditional Council. The  council hired a consultant to produce the report specifically to provide  background documentation to government agencies and officials to justify  the relocation effort and support future requests for government  assistance in the process. To meet these objectives, the consultant  summarized previous studies, mapped the historic advance of the river  erosion, reported impacts on the village and resident perspectives, and  documented the proactive approach of the village in response to the  problem. The council submitted this report to initiate a dialogue with  agencies, obtain their advice and assistance, and determine how their  needs fit with existing government programs. In April 2006, the Corps  estimated that the cost to relocate Newtok could range from $80 million to  $130 million.
In May 2006, representatives from state, federal, and nongovernmental  organizations formed the Newtok Planning Group. The purpose of the  group is to identify agency resources and to establish an overall strategy to  assist Newtok in its relocation efforts, addressing both the short-term  needs in the existing village and the critical infrastructure at the new  village as well as long-term relocation planning. The group is composed of  the Newtok Traditional Council; the Newtok Native Corporation; nine  Alaska state departments and offices; nine federal departments,  commissions, and offices; and five Alaska regional organizations. Since  2006, the collaborative efforts of the Newtok Planning Group have resulted  in significant progress toward the relocation of Newtok, including the  following:    The completion of a community layout plan to guide the efficient and  orderly development of the new village with a grant funded by the  Denali Commission.
The completion of a preliminary layout of water and sewer  infrastructure by the Alaska Department of Environmental  Conservation’s Village Safe Water Program as well as ongoing water  source investigations.
The completion of geotechnical studies of the new site by the Corps in  collaboration with state agencies.
The completion of a housing market survey to determine the housing  needs and desires of the community and submission of a grant  proposal to the Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc., for a  demonstration project for affordable, sustainable housing at the new  site incorporating design concepts from the University of Alaska,  Fairbanks, Cold Climate Housing Research Center.
Three homes have been constructed by Newtok residents at a  temporary site, through grants from Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs  Housing Improvement Program. These homes will eventually be moved  to the new village.
Reconnaissance for the placement of a new airport by the Alaska  Department of Transportation in collaboration with the Federal  Aviation Administration.
The design and planned construction of a barge ramp, dock, and  staging area at the new village site to be completed in July 2009, with  grant funding from the Department of Commerce’s Economic  Development Administration and state matching funds.
The completion by the Corps in July 2008 of a project-level  environmental assessment for the construction of an evacuation center  and associated features, such as an access road, at the new site. The  Department of Defense’s Innovative Readiness Training Program,  which partners military services with communities in need to provide  assistance and increase military readiness, has made a 5-year  commitment of troops and equipment to begin construction in 2010.
While the efforts of the Newtok Planning Group have accelerated the  village relocation, certain challenges may prevent the relocation from  proceeding as rapidly as possible in the future. A primary matter of  concern is how to address NEPA requirements, which require federal  agencies to review the likely environmental effects of major federal  actions. If more than one federal agency is involved in the same action or  group of actions directly related to each other, NEPA regulations require a  lead agency to supervise the NEPA evaluation. Currently, the Corps is the  lead agency for funding and planning the design and construction of the  evacuation center to be built at the new village site, but there is no  designated lead federal agency for the overall relocation of the village. The  Corps issued an environmental assessment that found no significant  impacts in July 2008. However, the Corps assessed only the environmental  effects of the evacuation center and associated project features, including  an access road from the barge landing, a sewage lagoon and landfill, a  quarry site, and connecting roads. Participants in the Newtok Planning  Group are concerned that until a federal lead agency is identified for  funding, planning, designing, or constructing all of the other components  of the village relocation, the NEPA requirements for these other relocation  components will remain unfulfilled.
Kivalina, Shaktoolik, and Shishmaref—the other 3 threatened villages that  will likely need to move all at once due to the imminent threat—are  significantly behind Newtok in their efforts to relocate. Specifically, none  of these villages have yet identified relocation sites that federal, state, and  village officials agree are safe, sustainable, and desirable for the  subsistence lifestyle of the villagers (see table 5).
According to officials from these three villages, reaching consensus to  relocate has been difficult. None of the decisions to relocate have been  unanimous, even in the case of Newtok, with some residents preferring  alternative locations, preferring different solutions, or preferring to remain  in place. In addition, villagers fear that making the decision to relocate  could hurt their ability to address immediate needs at the existing site,  such as maintaining or replacing aging infrastructure. For example, the  Newtok Planning Group found that the decision to relocate, combined  with the imminent threat of flooding and erosion, rendered Newtok  ineligible for capital funding for improvements to existing infrastructure,  such as water and sewer, bulk fuel tanks, and power plants, to meet needs  at the current village until the relocation was complete. Investment  guidance for state agencies discourages investments where there is an  imminent environmental threat, but also gives priority to the infrastructure  needs of existing communities over new communities, creating a  reluctance both to invest in a threatened community as well as to invest in  a future village site. Officials in Kivalina, Shaktoolik, and Shishmaref also  told us that they believed that the decision to relocate had caused federal  and state agencies to lower their villages’ priority for funding of needed  infrastructure projects in the existing village or has caused delays in  ongoing projects. The Immediate Action Workgroup has recommended  changes to state investment guidelines to address these issues.
While relocation sites are being identified and evaluated, protection  projects to prevent further flooding and erosion are also under way for  Kivalina and Shishmaref. However, some officials fear such actions could  slow the momentum toward relocating by creating a false sense of safety  at the existing villages. In 2008, Corps contractors constructed 400 feet of  a planned 2,000-foot seawall in Kivalina, and constructed 625 feet of a  planned 1,900-foot seawall in Shishmaref (see fig. 7). According to federal  and state officials, these seawalls could protect the villages for at least  15 years, and up to 25 years if properly maintained. However, DCCED  officials told us that they are concerned that such protective measures  may reduce the urgency among village leaders to make relocation  decisions and may prolong their stay in perilous conditions. Officials from  Shishmaref agreed and told us that any work done to protect the existing  village could prolong the relocation effort by reducing the urgency to  move, and they are concerned that the move will only become more costly  and difficult to fund the longer they wait. However, officials from both  villages told us that they are committed to moving expeditiously to  relocate once new sites are selected.
On the basis of the recommendations of the Immediate Action Workgroup,  state agencies are taking additional actions to prepare villages for  disasters while accelerating the relocation process. The Alaska Division of  Homeland Security and Emergency Management has taken the lead in  implementing the workgroup’s recommendation that a suite of emergency  plans, training, and drills be developed for 6 villages—the 4 villages likely  to relocate all at once as well as the villages of Koyukuk and Unalakleet.  State contractors are first helping the villages to produce hazard  assessments and mitigation plans, which will allow them to qualify for  FEMA hazard mitigation program funds, followed by emergency  operations and evacuation plans. The plans, training, and drills are  scheduled for completion by the end of 2009. In addition, to implement the  workgroup’s recommendation for relocation planning, DCCED is  administering the Alaska Climate Change Impact Mitigation Program. This  program may award grants of up to $150,000 to 4 of the 6 villages and  grants of up to $50,000 to other communities for relocation planning—for  example, to hire professional consultants to assist them.
section_title: Eight Other Villages Are Gradually Migrating to New Locations Over Time or Are Considering Options for Doing So
paragraphs: Eight of the threatened villages are gradually migrating to a new location  over time or considering doing so, although the extent of progress among  the villages varies. Four villages—Allakaket, Huslia, Nulato, and Teller— have moved existing structures or have built new structures in nearby  elevated sites away from the flooding and erosion threat (see table 6).
Four other villages—Golovin, Hughes, Koyukuk, and Unalakleet—have  identified readily accessible elevated sites, and are in the process of  identifying options for establishing infrastructure in these sites to support  and encourage gradual relocation (see table 7).
section_title: Lacking a Lead Federal Entity to Prioritize and Coordinate Assistance, Individual Agency Efforts May Not Adequately Address the Growing Threat to Relocating Villages
paragraphs: In the absence of a lead entity, federal agencies individually prioritize  assistance to villages on the basis of their programs’ criteria, which do not  necessarily ensure that the villages in the greatest peril get the highest  priority for assistance. The lack of a lead federal entity has impeded village  relocation efforts, including the fulfillment of the environmental analysis  requirements under NEPA.
subsections: section_title: Federal Agencies Use a Variety of Criteria to Provide Relocation Assistance, Which May Not Ensure That Villages in the Greatest Peril Get the Highest Priority
paragraphs: Federal agencies generally prioritize assistance to relocating villages  collaboratively with state agencies and villages on the basis of the  applicable criteria for the programs they administer. Some examples of the  criteria federal agencies use include the following:    Congressional direction: In section 117 of the fiscal year 2005  Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Corps was authorized to address  storm damage and erosion issues in Alaska communities at full federal  expense. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, a congressional committee  referred to this authority and directed appropriations to certain  specific villages for Alaska coastal erosion projects. Although section  117 was repealed in March 2009, a congressional committee directed  $3.328 million to the same 9 villages covered in our 2003 report for  Alaska coastal erosion projects in fiscal year 2009.
Cost-sharing: Several agencies use cost-sharing to prioritize assistance  to relocating villages. The Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program  generally requires villages to fund between 25 percent and 50 percent  of project costs. Similarly, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program  and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program require a cost share of 10 percent  to 25 percent, and its Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and Severe  Repetitive Loss Pilot Program have a recipient matching requirement.  The NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection program also typically  requires a 25 percent cost share for the cost of emergency measures,  with certain exceptions.
Cost-effectiveness: FEMA’s mitigation grant programs require  applicants to prepare a cost-benefit analysis that includes flood hazard  information and flood history for the project area, the property  inventory, and the estimated project costs; the Corps’ Continuing  Authorities Program gives priority to projects that provide benefits  greater than their estimated costs; and the NRCS Emergency  Watershed Protection program requires applicants to prepare a cost- benefit analysis, which can include social or environmental factors— such as protecting the subsistence lifestyle of an Alaska Native village.
Village needs: NRCS prioritizes Emergency Watershed Protection  program funding on the basis of a damage survey to determine the  village need for assistance; FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program  provides assistance only if an effective response is beyond the  capabilities of the state and the affected local governments with a  federal disaster declaration; and HUD’s Imminent Threats Grants  Program prioritizes funding for housing assistance to villages with  imminent threats to health or safety.
Village commitment: The Department of Transportation’s Federal  Aviation Administration gives priority for funding a new airport to  villages that are committed to relocating once the new airport is  constructed, because it is not cost-effective to keep two airports open  simultaneously; and Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will make  every effort to accomplish a land exchange—a time-consuming and  costly activity—for those villages located within refuge boundaries that  need to relocate.
Although state agencies and villages have been able to obtain federal  assistance for some projects in relocating villages under these criteria,  assistance may not necessarily go to the highest priority villages. For  example, as we reported in 2003, villages have difficulty in meeting the  cost-sharing criteria for federal agency protection or relocation projects.  To help the most threatened villages overcome this problem, the state of  Alaska appropriated funds to augment federal erosion control and  mitigation project capital costs by 35 percent—as suggested by the  Corps—to ensure that federal funds would be allocated to Alaska. As a  result, even though the Corps had the authority under section 117 to  conduct the projects at full federal cost, the state designated most of its  fiscal year 2009 $12.6 million erosion control appropriation to serve as a  nonfederal cost share for the Corps’ Alaska coastal erosion projects in  5 villages. However, the state could not use such leverage to assist  Shaktoolik—1 of the 6 top priority villages identified by the Immediate  Action Workgroup in 2008—because it was not among the 9 villages  eligible for assistance under the program. In addition, as discussed in our  2003 report, even the most imminently threatened Alaska Native villages  have difficulty in qualifying under cost-effectiveness criteria because the  value of their infrastructure is usually less than the cost of proposed  erosion or flood control projects. This problem is exacerbated by the high  cost of construction in remote villages where labor, equipment, and  materials have to be brought in from distant locations. Finally, few villages  meet emergency needs criteria, particularly in dealing with erosion, which  is a gradual process that does damage over time, and, as we have  previously stated in this report, some villages have found it challenging to  identify suitable relocation sites that the entire village population can  commit to accepting.
Moreover, federal agencies have not had the necessary information or  guidance that would allow them to prioritize assistance on the basis of the  level of threat, until just recently. As we have previously discussed in this  report, in March 2009, the Corps completed its Alaska Baseline Erosion  Assessment, identifying 26 communities that it recommends for immediate  and substantial action to manage erosion issues. While the Corps plans to  use the assessment to prioritize its future assistance to villages, it does not  have the authority to require other agencies to prioritize assistance on the  basis of its assessment. Furthermore, there is no federal lead agency for  relocating villages with the authority to provide overall guidance and  coordination in prioritizing assistance to the most threatened villages.
section_title: The Lack of a Lead Federal Entity Has Become an Impediment to Village Relocation Efforts
paragraphs: Since our 2003 report, no lead federal entity has emerged to coordinate  and help prioritize federal assistance to relocating villages, and the lack of  a lead entity has become an impediment to village relocation efforts. For  example, although Newtok has made significant relocation progress, in  October 2007, the Newtok Planning Group identified key challenges to  further progress, with several directly related to the need for a lead  federal—and state—agency. First, there was no designated lead agency for  state or federal efforts to coordinate and leverage relocation assistance,  which the group considers essential to the orderly and efficient use of  resources between agencies. Second, lacking lead agencies with a  mandate for relocating villages, there was no relocation strategy to guide  and define the roles of participants in the process. Third, lacking a  dedicated funding source, relocation efforts were limited to a patchwork  of agency funding and grants, which was time-consuming and difficult to  coordinate, and not available on an expedited basis to address critical  needs at both the existing and new sites. While these challenges were  specific to Newtok’s relocation experience, the Newtok Planning Group  asserted that these challenges would be applicable to other village  relocation efforts.
Moreover, a key issue for Newtok that directly related to the lack of a lead  federal agency is that further progress in the village relocation effort is  dependent on pending projects undergoing NEPA analysis. The Newtok  Planning Group reported that the responsibility for fulfilling NEPA  requirements is uncertain without a lead federal agency, presenting a  significant challenge to the expeditious planning and development of the  new community. In our discussions with agency officials involved in or  potentially involved in village relocation efforts, some said that there is a  reluctance among federal agencies to initiate a project at a new village site  because doing so could potentially make them responsible for taking the  lead in preparing a programmatic environmental analysis for the entire  village relocation—not just for their specific project. Agency officials told  us that preparing a programmatic environmental analysis entails  significant cost and effort, such as coordinating with other agencies,  performing a detailed review of project alternatives, acquiring permits, and  conducting public outreach. If no agency takes lead responsibility for a  programmatic environmental analysis, it is likely that each agency will  conduct individual project environmental analyses, as the Corps has done  by completing an environmental assessment specifically for the Newtok  evacuation center. According to a Corps program manager, this would be  inefficient, repetitive, and costly. Whether Newtok must wait for a lead  federal agency to step forward or for each agency to independently assess  the environmental effects of their projects, any delay in the relocation  process increases costs because of inflation and the inefficiency of the  uncoordinated process.
Because of the concerns raised by the Newtok Planning Group regarding  the lack of federal and state lead agencies, the state designated DCCED as  the lead state coordinating agency for all village relocation assistance in  2008. Since then, DCCED and the Immediate Action Workgroup have been  instrumental in coordinating and prioritizing activities at the state level  and in preparing a budget justification for the state legislature that  resulted in an appropriation of $12.6 million for fiscal year 2009, and in a  recommendation for nearly $9 million in appropriations for 2010.  Furthermore, to ensure continued success in leveraging the state’s  resources through coordination and collaboration with other state and  federal agencies—as well as regional and community organizations—the  Immediate Action Workgroup recommended in March 2009 that its ad hoc  collaborative approach should be replaced with a formal, standing  committee or workgroup embedded in the state’s administrative  operations.
Confirming the concerns of the Newtok Planning Group, federal, state, and  village officials with whom we spoke told us that a lead federal entity is  needed to coordinate village relocation efforts. Federal officials identified  an overall lack of leadership and the absence of an entity with the  authority to take charge and direct the actions of other agencies as key  challenges to the relocation of threatened villages. According to state  officials, the lack of a single federal agency with a budget and mission  dedicated to assisting villages has forced the state and villages to take the  less efficient, time-consuming approach of cobbling together assistance  from numerous federal agencies with varying missions. Some village  leaders told us that providing them with assistance does not appear to be a  priority for federal agencies, and that there is no clear leader among the  agencies for them to go to for relocation assistance. To address these  concerns, a lead federal entity could identify the most threatened villages,  prioritize federal investments and provide guidance to other agencies,  assist Congress on new legislation or revisions to existing law that could  benefit relocating villages, and be the go-to agency to assist and guide  villages throughout the relocation process. Guidance for the villages is  important, because both the Immediate Action Workgroup and the  Newtok Planning Group found that threatened villages may lack the  capacity and resources to obtain and administer government funding for  relocation, particularly in times of crisis.
The village of Allakaket provides an example of a village that, lacking  guidance and coordinating assistance from a lead entity, has been unable  to complete its relocation, even though it has had a comprehensive  relocation plan in place for over a decade. After it was flooded in 1994 and  almost completely destroyed, 15 HUD homes were moved out of the  floodplain to a ridge south of Allakaket, but many homes and  infrastructure components were rebuilt or replaced in or near the  floodplain. In August 1995, FEMA and the Alaska Division of Emergency  Services provided a comprehensive plan to the people of Allakaket to use  as guidance for completing the relocation process over a 20-year period.  Subsequently, without a lead federal or state entity for providing  relocation assistance and lacking the internal capacity and resources to  sustain the relocation process, Allakaket has made minimal progress over  the last 14 years. Allakaket officials and residents believe that the federal  and state governments have not fulfilled their obligations to help them  relocate, and they are concerned, for example, that 19 emergency homes  for residents who had lost their homes in the 1994 flood are now  dilapidated, deteriorating, and overcrowded, but remain in use by  residents within the floodplain.
The two entities suggested to lead federal relocation efforts by those with  whom we spoke were the Corps—which has extensive involvement in  village protection projects and conducted the Alaska Baseline Erosion  Assessment—and the Denali Commission—the existing federal-state body  for coordinating assistance to rural Alaska. However, Corps officials  commented that they should not necessarily be the lead in every  relocation case because there are a number of other federal agencies with  key responsibilities for important relocation assistance, such as providing  housing, transportation, health, and education services. Denali  Commission officials stated that significant staffing and funding increases  would be needed for the commission to take the lead role for village  relocations in addition to its existing responsibilities. Alternatively, a new  entity could be formed to lead, oversee, and coordinate village relocation  efforts.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Congress and the state of Alaska have made a commitment to assist  Alaska Native villages that are threatened by flooding and erosion. While  some progress has been made to determine the scope of the problem since  our 2003 report, the full extent of the threat to villages remains unknown.  Because the Corps’ Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment did not consider  flooding, the status of the threat to many villages cannot be properly taken  into account by federal and state officials when planning and prioritizing  assistance to villages, thereby creating the potential that villages may not  receive the assistance they need due to a lack of complete information for  decision makers.
Because of Alaska’s unique structure of organized boroughs and an  unorganized borough, unincorporated Native villages in the unorganized  borough do not qualify for federal housing funds from HUD’s Community  Development Block Grant program. The disqualification of the villages in  this borough is not because they lack the need for these funds, but  because there is no local government that is a political subdivision of the  state to receive the funds. The exclusion of Native villages from this  existing federal program contributes to the difficulties they face in  obtaining resources for relocation.
Even in the cases where the imminent flooding or erosion threat is clear,  the efforts of federal and state programs to provide assistance, thus far,  have resulted in little progress toward relocation. Collaborating together,  the federal government and the state government have an opportunity to  address these threats in a thoughtful, reasonable, and environmentally  sound manner. As time passes without significant progress being made on  these village relocations, the potential for disaster increases, as does the  ultimate cost of moving the villages out of harm’s way. The paradox is that  funding would be made available to respond to a disaster, but no  comprehensive program exists to proactively assist these villages to  prevent an impending disaster. Responding to these disasters in an  emergency situation may result in rushed decisions and solutions that are  not optimal and less environmentally sound. Moreover, the lack of a lead  federal entity for providing relocation assistance has emerged as an  impediment to village relocation efforts. A lead entity would be able to  ensure compliance with NEPA and to ensure the efficient development  and setting of priorities across agencies and better coordination among all  levels of government.
section_title: Matters for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To obtain a more complete understanding of the flooding threats facing  Alaska Native villages, Congress may want to consider directing the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an Alaska Baseline Flooding  Assessment to augment the Corps’ recently completed Alaska Baseline  Erosion Assessment.
To provide the state of Alaska with additional flexibility in its distribution  of HUD Community Development Block Grant funds, Congress may want  to consider amending the Housing and Community Development Act of  1974 to acknowledge the unique governmental structure in the state of  Alaska and enable the 64 unincorporated Alaska Native villages in Alaska’s  unorganized borough to be eligible grant recipients for HUD Community  Development Block Grant funds distributed through the state.
Determining the means and extent of federal assistance to relocating  Alaska Native villages is a policy decision that rests with Congress. We  have provided information indicating that establishing a lead federal entity  for prioritizing and guiding federal assistance to relocating villages may  have benefits to the villages, to federal and state agencies, and to  Congress. In its deliberations regarding assistance to relocating villages,  Congress may want to consider designating, or creating, a lead federal  entity that could work in conjunction with the lead state agency to  coordinate and oversee village relocation efforts.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a copy of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture,  Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and  Urban Development, the Interior, and Transportation; the Denali  Commission; and the state of Alaska. In its written response, the Denali  Commission agreed with each of our matters for Congressional  consideration and stated that it is prepared to assist in future relocation  and erosion efforts to the extent that Congress deems appropriate and  necessary. The Denali Commission’s comments are presented in appendix  II. The Departments of Defense, Housing and Urban Development, and the  Interior provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the  report as appropriate. The Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human  Services, Homeland Security, and Transportation, and the state of Alaska  did not provide comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human  Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the  Interior, and Transportation; the federal and state cochairs of the Denali  Commission; the Governor of the state of Alaska; and other interested  parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Additional Key Federal Programs That Can Address Flooding and Erosion Problems
subsections: section_title: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
paragraphs: Provides emergency streambank and shoreline erosion protection for  public facilities.
Authorizes flood control projects.
Authorizes flood control activities.
Protects shores of publicly owned property from hurricane and storm  damage.
Mitigates shoreline erosion damage caused by federal navigation  projects.
Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
NRCS/Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program  Provides funding for projects that control erosion and prevent flooding.
Limited to watersheds that are less than 250,000 acres.
Provides assistance where there is some imminent threat—usually  from erosion caused by river flooding.
Provides technical assistance to communities and individuals to solve  natural resource problems, including reducing erosion, improving air  and water quality, and maintaining or restoring wetlands and habitat.
Provides assistance to protect and develop the economies of  communities. This assistance could involve building erosion or flood  control structures to protect village commercial structures, such as  canneries.
Provides grants to Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages to develop  economic opportunities and build decent housing for low- and  moderate-income residents.
Provides grants and technical assistance to Indian tribes and Alaska  Native villages to develop affordable housing for low-income families.  The funds may also be used to move homes that are threatened by  flooding and erosion.
Provides funding to alleviate or remove imminent threats to health or  safety for nonrecurring events.
Provides funding for maintaining and repairing roads, culverts, and  airstrips to provide a foundation for economic development.
Provides grants and technical assistance to replace substandard  housing, including housing that is threatened, damaged, or lost due to  erosion or flooding.
Provides funding to improve airport infrastructure—including those  threatened by flooding and erosion. May fund relocation of an airport if  necessitated by community relocation, providing the airport meets  criteria for funding—airport is in the National Plan of Integrated Airport  System and meets agency design standards. However, the villages  first need to be relocated before the new airport is built.
Provides funding through the state of Alaska for roads, pedestrian  facilities, and snowmobile trails. Funding may be available to assist  villages with improving or repairing roads/boardwalks.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Denali Commission
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Assistant  Director; Allen T. Chan; Brad C. Dobbins; Alison D. O’Neill; and Jeanette  M. Soares made key contributions to this report.