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

Letter

Background

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.

The Flooding and Erosion Threats to Villages Have Not Been Completely Assessed, but Some Threatened Villages Are Exploring Relocation Options

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.

Thirty-one Imminently Threatened Villages Have Been Identified, but the Threat Assessment Is Incomplete

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.

Twelve Imminently Threatened Villages Are Exploring Relocation Options for All of, or a Portion of, Their Existing Villages

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).

Federal Disaster Programs Have Provided Limited Assistance to Villages, and No Comprehensive Relocation Program Exists

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.

FEMA Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Programs Have Provided Limited Assistance to Villages

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.

No Comprehensive Federal Relocation Program Exists, but Individual Agencies Are Providing Some Relocation Assistance, and Other Flooding and Erosion Mitigation Activities Are Ongoing

“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.

Most of the 12 Villages Exploring Relocation Options Have Made Limited Progress

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.

Newtok Has Made the Most Progress of the 4 Villages That Will Likely Relocate All at Once

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.

Eight Other Villages Are Gradually Migrating to New Locations Over Time or Are Considering Options for Doing So

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).

Lacking a Lead Federal Entity to Prioritize and Coordinate Assistance, Individual Agency Efforts May Not Adequately Address the Growing Threat to Relocating Villages

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.

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

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.

The Lack of a Lead Federal Entity Has Become an Impediment to Village Relocation Efforts

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.

Conclusions

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.

Matters for Congressional Consideration

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.

Agency Comments

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.

Appendix I: Additional Key Federal Programs That Can Address Flooding and Erosion Problems

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Denali Commission

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

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.