Alaska encompasses an area of about 365 million acres, more than the combined area of the next three largest states—Texas, California, and Montana. The state is bound on three sides by water, and its coastline, which stretches about 6,600 miles (excluding island shorelines, bays and fjords) and accounts for more than half of the entire U.S. coastline, varies from rocky shores, sandy beaches, and high cliffs to river deltas, mud flats, and barrier islands. The coastline constantly changes due to wave action, ocean currents, storms, and river deposits and is subject to periodic, yet severe, erosion. Alaska also has more than 12,000 rivers, including three of the ten largest in the country—the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Copper Rivers. (See fig. 1.) While these and other rivers provide food, transportation, and recreation for people, as well as habitat for fish and wildlife, their waters also shape the landscape. In particular, ice jams on rivers and flooding of riverbanks during spring breakup change the contour of valleys, wetlands, and human settlements. Permafrost (permanently frozen subsoil) is found over approximately 80 percent of Alaska. It is deepest and most extensive on the Arctic Coastal Plain and decreases in depth, eventually becoming discontinuous further south. In northern Alaska, where the permafrost is virtually everywhere, most buildings are elevated to minimize the amount of heat transferred to the ground to avoid melting the permafrost. In northern barrier island communities, the permafrost literally helps hold the island together. However, rising temperatures in recent years have led to widespread thawing of the permafrost, causing serious damage. As permafrost melts, buildings and runways sink, bulk fuel tank areas are threatened, and slumping and erosion of land ensue. (See fig. 2.) Rising temperatures have also affected the thickness, extent, and duration of sea ice that forms along the western and northern coasts. The loss of sea ice leaves coasts more vulnerable to waves, storm surges, and erosion. When combined with the thawing of permafrost along the coast, this loss of sea ice poses a serious threat to coastal Alaska Native villages. Furthermore, loss of sea ice alters the habitat and accessibility of many of the marine mammals that Alaska Natives depend upon for subsistence. As the ice melts or moves away early, walruses, seals, and polar bears move with it, taking them too far away to be hunted. Although Alaska is by far the largest state, it is one of the least populated, with about 630,000 people—of which 19 percent, or about 120,000, are Alaska Natives. Over half of the state’s population is concentrated in the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, and the Matanuska-Susitna area in south central Alaska. Many Alaska Natives, however, live in places long inhabited by their ancestors in rural areas in western, northern, and interior Alaska. Alaskan Natives are generally divided into six major groupings: Unangan (Aleuts), Alutiiq (Pacific Eskimos), Iñupiat (Northern Eskimos), Yup’ik (Bering Sea Eskimos), Athabascan (Interior Indians), and Tlingit and Haida (Southeast Coastal Indians). For generations, these Alaska Natives have used the surrounding waters and land to hunt, fish, and gather wild plants for food. (See fig. 3.) These subsistence activities are intricately woven into the fabric of their lives. Subsistence activities require a complex network of social relationships within the Native community. For example, there is a division of labor among those who harvest, those who prepare, and those who distribute the food. These activities establish and promote the basic values of Alaska Native culture—generosity, respect for the knowledge and guidance of elders, self-esteem for the successful hunter(s), and community cooperation—and they form the foundation for continuity between generations. As their environment changes along with the climate, however, Alaska Natives have few adaptive strategies, and their traditional way of life is becoming increasingly vulnerable. A typical coastal or river Native village has a population of a couple of hundred people and generally contains only basic infrastructure—homes, a school, a village store, a health clinic, a washateria, a church, city or tribal offices, and a post office. The school is usually the largest building in the community. Since many villages do not have running water, the washateria plays an important role; it not only contains laundry facilities, but also shower and toilet facilities—which residents must pay a fee to use. Many village homes do not have sanitation facilities and rely on honey buckets— 5-gallon buckets that serve as a toilet—or a flush and haul system. Most of the villages that are not accessible by roads contain an airport runway that provides the only year-round access to the community. The runways are generally adjacent to the village or a short distance away. Other infrastructure in a village may consist of a bulk fuel tank farm, a power plant, a water treatment facility, a water tank, meat drying racks, a village sewage lagoon or dump site, and, for some villages, commercial structures such as tanneries. Most river villages also have a barge landing area where goods are delivered to the community during the ice-free period. The government structure of Native villages may contain several distinct entities that perform administrative tasks, including making decisions about how to address flooding and erosion. Alaska’s constitution and state laws allow for several types of regional and local government units, such as boroughs—units of government that are similar to the counties found in many other states. About a third of Alaska is made up of 16 organized boroughs. The remaining two-thirds of the state is sparsely populated land that is considered a single “unorganized borough.” At the village level, a federally recognized tribal government may coexist with a city government, which may also be under a borough government. Alaska has more than 200 federally recognized tribal governments. In addition to these various government entities, federal agencies that provide assistance for flooding and erosion also work with local and regional Native corporations. Federal law directed the establishment of these corporations under the laws of the state of Alaska, and the corporations are organized as for-profit entities that also have nonprofit arms. In December 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which directed the establishment of 12 for-profit regional corporations—one for each geographic region comprised of Natives having a common heritage and sharing common interests—and over 200 village corporations. These corporations would become the vehicle for distributing land and monetary benefits to Alaska Natives to provide a fair and just settlement of aboriginal land claims in Alaska. The act permitted the conveyance of about 44 million acres of land to Alaska Native corporations, along with cash payments of almost $1 billion. (See appendix II for a list of the regional corporations and the corresponding nonprofit arms that provide social services to the villages and also help them address problems, including flooding and erosion.) Federal, state, and local government agencies share responsibility for controlling and responding to flooding and erosion. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has responsibility for planning and constructing streambank and shoreline erosion protection and flood control structures under a specific set of requirements. The Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for protecting small watersheds. A number of other federal agencies, such as the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, also have responsibility for protecting certain infrastructure from flooding and erosion. On the state side, the Division of Emergency Services responds to state disaster declarations dealing with flooding and erosion when local communities request assistance. The Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development helps communities reduce losses and damage from flooding and erosion. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities funds work to protect runways from erosion. Local governments such as the North Slope Borough have also funded erosion control and flood protection projects. In addition to government agencies, the Denali Commission, created by Congress in 1998, while not directly responsible for responding to flooding and erosion, is charged with addressing crucial needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly isolated Alaska Native villages. The membership of the commission consists of federal and state cochairs and a five-member panel from statewide organization presidents. The mission of the commission is to partner with tribal, federal, state, and local governments to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government services; to build and ensure the operation and maintenance of Alaska’s basic infrastructure; and to develop a well-trained labor force. The commission funds infrastructure projects throughout the state, ranging from health clinics to bulk fuel tanks. The commission has also funded the construction of new infrastructure when flooding and erosion threatened the existing structures. According to federal and Alaska state officials that we consulted, most of the 213 Alaska Native villages are subject to flooding and erosion. However, it is difficult to assess the severity of the problem because quantifiable data on flooding and erosion are not available for remote locations. Villages located on the coast or along rivers are subject to both annual and episodic flooding and erosion. In addition, river villages are also susceptible to flooding and erosion caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, rising sea levels, and heavy rainfall. Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86.4 percent, of Alaska Native villages to some extent, according to studies and information provided to us by federal and Alaska state officials. The 184 affected villages consist of coastal and river villages throughout the state. Figure 4 shows the location of these villages, and table 1 shows the number of affected villages by ANCSA region. All 184 Native villages affected by flooding and erosion are listed in appendix III. Villages on the coast are affected by flooding and erosion from the sea. For example, when these villages are not protected by sea ice, they are at risk of flooding and erosion from storm surges. Lack of sea ice also increases the distance over water, which can generate increased waves and storm surges. In the case of Kivalina, the community has experienced erosion from sea storms, particularly in late summer or fall. These storms can result in a sea level rise of 10 feet or more, and when combined with high tide, the storm surge becomes even greater and can be accompanied by waves that contain ice. In addition to coastal villages, communities in low- lying areas along riverbanks or in river deltas are susceptible to flooding and erosion caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, rising sea levels and heavy rainfall. For example, the village of Aniak, on the Kuskokwim River in southwestern Alaska, experiences flooding every 3 or 4 years. Ice jams that form on the river during the spring breakup cause the most frequent and severe floods in Aniak, sometimes accompanied by streambank erosion from the ice flow. (See fig. 5.) Flooding and erosion are long-standing problems in Alaska. For example, these problems have been well documented in Bethel, Unalakleet, and Shishmaref dating back to the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, respectively. The state has made several efforts to identify communities affected by flooding and erosion over the past 30 years. In 1982, a state contractor developed a list of Alaska communities affected by flooding and erosion. This list identified 169 of the 213 Alaska Native villages, virtually the same villages identified by federal and state officials that we consulted in 2003. In addition, the state appointed an Erosion Control Task Force in 1983 to investigate and inventory potential erosion problems and to prioritize erosion sites by severity and need. In its January 1984 final report, the task force identified a total of 30 priority communities with erosion problems. Of these 30 communities, 28 are Alaska Native villages. Federal and state officials that we spoke with in 2003 also identified almost all of the Native communities in the 1984 report as villages needing assistance. While flooding and erosion is a long-standing problem that has been documented in Alaska for decades, various studies and reports indicate that coastal villages in Alaska are becoming more susceptible. This increasing susceptibility is due in part to rising temperatures that cause protective shore ice to form later in the year, leaving the villages vulnerable to storms. According to the Alaska Climate Research Center, mean annual temperatures have risen for the period from 1971 to 2000, although changes varied from one climate zone to another and were dependent on the temperature station selected. For example, Barrow experienced an average temperature increase of 4.16 degrees Fahrenheit for the 30-year period from 1971 to 2000, while Bethel experienced an increase of 3.08 degrees Fahrenheit for the same time period. Other studies have reported extensive melting of glaciers, thawing of permafrost, and reduction of sea ice that may also be contributing to the flooding and erosion problems of coastal villages in recent years. According to a 1999 report for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, glaciers in the arctic and subarctic regions have generally receded, with decreases in ice thickness of approximately 33 feet over the last 40 years. In addition, according to a 1997 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, much of the arctic permafrost is close to thawing, making it an area that is sensitive to small changes in temperature. The 1999 report for the U.S. Global Change Research Program also states that both the extent and thickness of sea ice in the arctic have decreased substantially in recent decades, with thickness decreasing by more than 4 feet (from 10- feet to 6-feet thick). The report also notes that loss of sea ice along Alaska’s coast has increased both coastal erosion and vulnerability to storm surges. With less ice, storm surges have become more severe because larger open water areas can generate bigger waves. While most Alaska Native villages are affected to some extent by flooding and erosion, quantifiable data are not available to fully assess the severity of the problem. Federal and Alaska state agency officials could agree on which three or four villages experience the most flooding and erosion, but they could not rank flooding and erosion in the remaining villages by high, medium, or low severity. These agency officials said that determining the extent to which villages have been affected by flooding and erosion is difficult because Alaska has significant data gaps. These gaps occur because remote locations lack monitoring equipment. The officials noted that about 400 to 500 gauging stations would have to be added in Alaska to attain the same level of gauging as in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, the amount and accuracy of floodplain information in Alaska varies widely from place to place. Detailed floodplain studies have been completed for many of the larger communities and for the more populated areas along some rivers. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has published Flood Insurance Rate Maps that show floodplain boundaries and flood elevations for communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. However, because only a handful of Alaska Native villages participate in the program, many of the villages have not had their 100-year floodplain identified by FEMA. In addition, little or no documented floodplain information exists for most of the smaller communities. Moreover, no consolidated record has been maintained of significant floods in Alaska Native villages. The Corps’ Flood Plain Management Services has an ongoing program to identify the 100- year flood elevation, or the flood of record of flood-prone communities through data research and field investigations. State of Alaska officials also noted that there is a lack of standards and terms for measuring erosion. Erosion zone guidance and federal (or state) standards by which to judge erosion risks are needed. They noted that while national standards for designing, developing and siting for the “100- year flood” event exists and are quantifiable and measurable, a similar standard for erosion, such as a distance measurement needs to be established. The key programs that construct projects to prevent and control flooding and erosion are administered by the Corps and NRCS. However, Alaska Native villages have difficulty qualifying for assistance under some of these programs—largely because of program requirements that the economic costs of the project not exceed its economic benefits. In addition to the Corps and NRCS, several other federal and state agencies have programs to provide assistance for specific consequences of flooding and erosion, such as programs to replace homes or to rebuild or repair roads and airstrips. The Continuing Authorities Program, administered by the Corps, and the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, administered by NRCS, are the principal programs available to prevent flooding and control erosion. Table 2 below lists and describes the five authorities under the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program that address flooding and erosion, while table 3 identifies the main NRCS programs that provide assistance for flooding and erosion. In addition to the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program, other Corps authorities that may address problems related to flooding and erosion include the following: Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, which provides authority for the Corps to assist states in the preparation of comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, and conservation of water and related resources of drainage basins. Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960, which allows the Corps’ Flood Plain Management Services’ Program to provide states and local governments technical services and planning guidance that is needed to support effective flood plain management. In addition to these programs, several other federal programs can assist Alaska Native villages in responding to the consequences of flooding by funding tasks such as moving homes, repairing roads, or rebuilding airport runways. Table 4 lists these programs. Small and remote Alaska villages often fail to qualify for assistance under the Corps’ Continuing Authorities Program because they do not meet the program’s criteria. In particular, according to the Corps’ guidelines for evaluating water resource projects, the Corps generally cannot undertake a project whose costs exceed its expected benefits. With few exceptions, Alaska Native villages’ requests for the Corps’ assistance are denied because of the Corps’ determination that project costs outweigh the expected benefits. Alaska Native villages have difficulty meeting the cost/benefit requirement because many of these villages are not developed to the extent that the value of their infrastructure is high enough to equal the cost of a proposed erosion or flood control project. For example, the Alaska Native village of Kongiganak, with a population of about 360 people, experiences severe erosion from the Kongnignanohk River. The Corps decided not to fund an erosion project because the cost of the project exceeds the expected benefits and because many of the structures threatened are private property, which are not eligible for protection under a Section 14 Emergency Streambank Protection project. One additional factor that makes it difficult for Alaska Native villages to qualify for the Corps’ program is that the cost of construction is high in remote villages— largely because labor, equipment, and materials have to be brought in from distant locations. The high cost of construction makes it even more difficult for villages to meet the Corps’ cost/benefit requirements. Even villages that do meet the Corps’ cost/benefit criteria may still fail to receive assistance if they cannot provide or find sufficient funding to meet the cost-share requirements for the project. By law, the Corps generally requires local communities to fund between 25 and 50 percent of project planning and construction costs for flood prevention and erosion control projects. According to village leaders we spoke to, under these cost-share requirements they may need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to fund their portion of a project—funding that many of them do not have. As shown in table 3, NRCS has three key programs that can provide assistance to villages to protect against flooding and erosion—two of which are less difficult to qualify for than the Corps program. The NRCS programs are the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, and the Conservation Technical Assistance Program. The purpose of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program is to assist federal, state, and local agencies and tribal governments in protecting and restoring watersheds from damage caused by erosion, and flooding. Qualifying for funding under the NRCS Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program requires a cost/benefit analysis similar to that of the Corps. In fact, according to an NRCS headquarters official, there should be little if any difference in the standards for cost benefit analyses between the Corps and NRCS programs. As a result, few projects for Alaskan Native villages have been funded under this program. In contrast, some villages have been able to qualify for assistance from the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, because for this program NRCS’s policy is different and allows consideration of additional factors in the cost/benefit analysis. Specifically, NRCS considers social or environmental factors when calculating the potential benefits of a proposed project, and protecting the subsistence lifestyle of an Alaska Native village can be included as one of these factors. In addition, NRCS headquarters officials have instructed field staff to “take a second look” at proposed projects in which the potential benefits are nearly equal to the project costs. In some cases, according to NRCS’s National Emergency Watershed Protection Program Leader, there may be unusual circumstances that might make the project worthwhile even if the costs slightly outweigh the benefits. One example provided by this official was for projects that involved protecting Native American burial grounds. Furthermore, while NRCS’s program encourages cost sharing by local communities, this requirement can be waived when the local community cannot afford to pay. Such was the case in Unalakleet, where the community had petitioned federal and state agencies to fund its local cost- share of an erosion protection project and was not successful. Eventually, NRCS waived the cost-share requirement for the village and covered the total cost of the project itself. (See fig. 6.) Another NRCS official in Alaska estimated that about 25 villages have requested assistance under this program during the last 5 years; of these 25 villages, 6 received some assistance from NRCS, and 19 were turned down—mostly because there were either no feasible solutions or because the problems they wished to address were recurring ones. One factor that limits the assistance provided by the program is that it is intended for smaller scale projects than those that might be constructed by the Corps. Moreover, because this program is designed to respond quickly to emergencies, it is limited to addressing one- time events—such as repairing damage caused by a large storm—rather than addressing recurring flooding and erosion. Unlike the other NRCS programs and the Corps program, NRCS’s Conservation Technical Assistance Program does not require any cost benefit analysis to qualify for assistance. An NRCS official in Alaska estimated that during the last 2 years, NRCS provided assistance to about 25 villages under this program. The program is designed to provide technical assistance to communities and individuals that request help to solve natural resource problems, improve the health of the watershed, reduce erosion, improve air and water quality, or maintain or improve wetlands and habitat. The technical assistance provided can range from advice or consultation services to developing planning, design, and/or engineering documents. The program does not fund the construction or implementation of a project. In addition to the federal programs, the state of Alaska has programs to help address or respond to flooding and erosion problems of Alaska Native villages. These include: The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, which funds work through its maintenance appropriations to protect village airstrips from erosion. The Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, which has a floodplain management program that provides coordination and technical assistance to communities to help reduce public-and private-sector losses and damage from flooding and erosion. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, which has a Village Safe Water Program that can pay to relocate water or sewage treatment facilities that are threatened by erosion. The Alaska Housing Financing Corporation, which has a program to provide loans or grants to persons in imminent danger of losing their homes. The Alaska Division of Emergency Services, which coordinates the response to emergencies resulting from flooding and erosion, as requested by local communities. Its mission is to lead, coordinate, and support the emergency management system, in order to protect lives and prevent the loss of property from all types of hazards. With authorization from the governor, the state Disaster Relief Fund can make up to $1 million (without legislative approval) available to communities recovering from a state declared disaster. More funding may be available, with legislative approval, for presidential disaster declarations, for which the state is obligated to pay a 25 percent funding match. In addition to these programs, the state legislature, through its appropriations, has funded erosion control structures including bulkheads and sea walls. According to state documents, between 1972 and 1991 the state spent over $40 million for erosion control statewide. Four of the nine villages we reviewed are in imminent danger from flooding and erosion and are making plans to relocate, while the remaining five are taking other actions. (See fig. 7.) Of the four villages relocating, Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref are working with relevant federal agencies to locate suitable new sites, while Koyukuk is just beginning the relocation planning process. The cost of relocating these villages is expected to be high, although estimates currently exist only for Kivalina. Of the five villages not planning to relocate, Barrow, Kaktovik, Point Hope, and Unalakleet each have studies under way that target specific infrastructure that is vulnerable to flooding and erosion. The fifth village, Bethel, is repairing and extending an existing seawall to protect the village’s dock from river erosion. Table 5 summarizes the status of the nine villages’ efforts to respond to their specific flooding and erosion problems. During our review of the nine villages, we found instances where federal agencies had invested in infrastructure projects without knowledge of the villages’ plans to relocate. Four villages—Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref—are in imminent danger of flooding and eroding and are planning to relocate. (See table 5.) Kivalina and Shishmaref are located on barrier islands that are continuously shrinking due to chronic erosion. In Newtok, the Ninglick River is making its way ever closer to the village, with an average erosion rate of 90 feet per year, and is expected to erode the land under homes, schools, and businesses within 5 years. The fourth village, Koyukuk, is located near the confluence of the Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers and experiences chronic annual flooding. The village of Kivalina lies on a barrier island that is both overcrowded and shrinking from chronic erosion. Surrounded by the Chukchi Sea and the Kivalina Lagoon, the village has no further room for expansion. (See fig. 8.) A 1994 study by a private contractor found more than one instance of 16 people living together in a 900-square-foot home. Overcrowding and poor sanitation have led to an extremely high incidence of communicable diseases and other health problems in Kivalina. Chronic erosion on the lagoon side of the island and along its southeastern tip where the lagoon empties into the sea has further exacerbated overcrowding. Several homes along this side are currently in danger of falling into the lagoon. On the seaside of the island, fall storm surges create annual coastal flooding and beach erosion. Portions of the island have been breached before, and it is believed that the right combination of storm events could flood the entire village at any time. In 1990, the Corps placed sandbags around the southern tip of the island in an attempt to stem the erosion, but that proved to be only a temporary solution. Most recent efforts to respond to flooding and erosion have involved studying the feasibility of possible relocation sites. The villagers would like a site that is near their current location with access to the ocean so that they can continue to pursue their subsistence lifestyle. Much of the surrounding area, however, is low-lying wetlands or tundra. One of the main obstacles for selecting a site has been the requirement of a gravel pad for some of the sites under consideration. In those cases, several feet of gravel must be spread over the entire site, both to elevate the new village above the floodplain and to protect the fragile permafrost. However, gravel is not easily accessible and would have to be barged in. Similarly, the harsh, remote terrain and limited site access drive up other costs for materials and machinery. The Corps has estimated that the cost to relocate Kivalina could range from $100 million for design and construction of infrastructure (including a gravel pad) at one site and up to $400 million for just the cost of building a gravel pad at another site. As a result, the community is now considering whether to ask the Corps to evaluate completely new sites that would not require a gravel pad. Remaining on the island, however, is no longer a viable option for the community. Like Kivalina, the village of Shishmaref is located on a barrier island in the Chukchi Sea and experiences chronic erosion. During severe fall storms, as occurred in 1973, 1997, 2001, and 2002, the village has lost on average between 20 and 50 feet of land and up to 125 feet at one time. This loss is considerable for an island that is no wider than one-quarter mile (1,320 feet). After a severe storm in October 2002, stress cracks along the western seaside bluffs became evident. These cracks were 5 to 10 feet from the edge of the banks and indicated that the permafrost that holds the island together had been undermined by the storm. As the permafrost melts, the banks cave in. (See fig. 9.) Several homes located along these banks had to be relocated to prevent them from falling into the sea. After the 1997 fall storm, which was declared a state disaster, FEMA and state matching funds were used to help move 14 homes along the coastal bluff to another part of the village, and in 2002, the Bering Straits Housing Authority relocated an additional 5 homes out of harm’s way. Although the Corps had informed the villagers of Shishmaref in 1953 that relocation would be a cheaper alternative to building a seawall to protect the bluffs, the community did not vote to relocate until 1973 when it experienced two unusually severe fall storms that caused widespread damage and erosion. However, the site that the community selected proved to be unsuitable because it had an extensive layer of permafrost. Furthermore, other government agencies told the villagers that they would not receive funding for their new school or a much-needed new runway if they decided to relocate. According to Corps documents, the community reversed its decision and voted in August 1974 to stay on the island. The new school was completed in 1977, and a few years later a new runway was also built. Since the 1970s, the village has attempted a variety of erosion protection measures totaling more than $5 million. These projects have included various sandbag and gabion seawalls (wire cages, or baskets, filled with rocks) and even a concrete block mat. Each project has required numerous repairs and has ultimately failed to provide long-term protection. In October 2001, the governor of Alaska issued an administrative order for an $85,000 protective sandbag wall that was intended to last only one storm— and it did just that. In July 2002, the community again voted to relocate, and it is currently working with NRCS to select an appropriate site. Once a site is selected, the relocation process itself will take a number of years to complete. In the meantime, stopgap erosion protection measures and other federal and state services continue to be necessary to safeguard the community. For this reason, the community is working with Kawerak, a nonprofit Native corporation, to build a 500-foot seawall at an estimated cost of $1 million along the most affected part of the seaside bluff. The village is also seeking the Corps’ assistance to extend the wall farther to protect the school and other public buildings. In addition, the community is applying for assistance through the Alaska Army National Guard’s Innovative Readiness Training Program, in which guard units gain training and experience while providing medical, transportation, and engineering services to rural villages. The village of Newtok, located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta on the Ninglick River, suffers from chronic erosion along its riverbank. Between 1954 and 2001 the village lost more than 4,000 feet of land to erosion. The current erosion rate has been estimated at 90 feet per year. At this rate, the Corps believes that the land under village residences and infrastructure will erode within 5 years. Among its various attempts to combat erosion, the village placed an experimental $750,000 sandbag wall along the riverbank in 1987. The wall, however, failed to slow the rate of erosion. The community recently negotiated a land exchange with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a new village site. Legislation authorizing the conveyance to Newtok of both the surface and subsurface estate of specified federal lands on nearby Nelson Island in exchange for land the village currently owns or would receive title to under ANCSA was signed into law in November 2003. In anticipation of a move, the village is studying the soils and geology of the proposed relocation site to determine its suitability. The fourth village planning to relocate is Koyukuk, which is located entirely in a floodplain near the confluence of the Yukon and Koyukuk rivers. It experiences severe flooding, mostly as a result of ice jams that occur after the spring breakup of river ice. (See fig. 10.) Water that accumulates behind the ice jams repeatedly floods homes and public structures, including the school and runway. The flooding is episodic, but villagers prepare for it every year in the spring by placing their belongings in high places and putting their vehicles on floats. The village has been evacuated more than once. In July 2003, with funding assistance from FEMA, the Tanana Chiefs Conference, which is a nonprofit regional corporation, developed a flood mitigation plan for Koyukuk that includes both evacuation and relocation strategies. The community is in the process of assessing prospective relocation areas to find an appropriate site. In the meantime, the FAA has awarded a grant to the state to both raise the grade of and lengthen Koyukuk’s runway at a cost of $10.3 million. The remaining five villages, while not in imminent danger, do experience serious flooding and erosion and are undertaking various infrastructure- specific activities to resolve these problems. Kaktovik is studying how best to address flooding of its airport runway. Point Hope is studying alternatives for an emergency evacuation road in the event of flooding. Barrow has a study under way for dealing with beachfront erosion that threatens the village’s utility corridor. Unalakleet is beginning a study to respond to erosion problems at its harbor and improve its navigational access. Finally, Bethel is repairing and extending an existing seawall to protect the village’s dock from river erosion. The village of Kaktovik, located on Barter Island at the northern edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, experiences flooding of its airport runway. The eastern end of the runway is approximately 1 to 2 feet above mean sea level, while the western end is approximately 7 to 8 feet above mean sea level. As a result of this low elevation, the runway usually floods every fall and is inoperative for 2 to 4 days, according to Kaktovik’s mayor. In 2000, the North Slope Borough, which operates the airport, contracted with the Arctic Slope Consulting Group, Inc., to conduct a flood study at the airport. The study presented a preliminary cost estimate of $11.3 million for protecting the runway from damage by storm events resulting in 100-year flood conditions. Recently, the North Slope Borough and FAA hired an engineering company to prepare an Airport Master Plan that will provide alternatives for upgrading the existing runway or building a new airport, either on Barter Island (estimated at $15 to $20 million) or on the mainland (estimated at $25 to $35 million). FAA will support the least-cost alternative and will fund 93.75 percent of the project, while the North Slope Borough will fund the remaining 6.25 percent. The study should be completed in 2004. The village of Point Hope, located on a spit of land that is one of the longest continually inhabited areas in northwest Alaska (with settlements over 2,500 years old), moved to its current location in the 1970s because of flooding and erosion problems at its original site. However, flooding and erosion remain a concern for the community at its new location, prompting efforts to build an evacuation road and relocate its runway. The North Slope Borough has funded a Project Analysis Report that assesses three construction options for an emergency evacuation road, which include reconstructing an existing road, extending that road to the mainland, or constructing a new road altogether. The road would not only facilitate emergency evacuation in the event of a flood, but would also provide a transportation route to a relocated runway. The village’s current runway, which is a mile west of the current village and extends to the Chukchi Sea, floods during fall storms and is at risk of erosion. According to village representatives, the runway was inoperable for 5 days last year because of flooding. (See fig. 11.) One end of the runway is currently about 80 feet from the ocean, and village officials estimate that between 5 to 8 feet of land are lost to erosion annually. They noted however, that a single storm could take as much as 20 feet of land. The Alaska Native village of Barrow is grappling with ways to address beach erosion and flooding. Much of the community’s infrastructure is at risk from storm damage, shoreline erosion, and flooding. About $500 million of Barrow’s infrastructure is located in the floodplain. In particular, the road that separates the sewage lagoon and an old landfill from the sea is at risk, as well as the village’s utility corridor. This underground corridor contains sewage, water and power lines, and communication facilities for the community. Beach erosion threatens over 1 mile of the corridor. According to village and North Slope Borough officials, the Borough coordinates erosion projects for the village and spends about $500,000 each time there is a flood. The Corps has recently begun a feasibility study for a storm damage reduction project along Barrow’s beach. The Alaska Native village of Unalakleet experiences both coastal and river flooding, which, when combined with shoreline erosion, have created an access problem at the harbor. Eroded land has piled up at the harbor mouth, creating six distinct sandbars. These sandbars pose a serious problem for barge passage; barges and fishing boats must wait for high tide to reach the harbor, delaying the delivery of bulk goods, fuel, and other items, which increases the costs of the cargo and moorage. The sandbars also pose a risk to those whose boats get stuck at low tide and who must simply sit and wait for a high tide. Unalakleet serves as a subregional hub for several nearby villages that rely on the harbor and fish processing plant for conducting their commercial fishing businesses. The village was recently able to raise $400,000 from the Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation and $400,000 from Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for the local share of a Corps study on improving navigational access to its harbor. Bethel, the regional village hub of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, experiences periodic flooding, mostly because of ice jams during the spring breakup of the Kuskokwim River. The ice also causes severe erosion by scouring the riverbanks. The spring ice breakup in 1995 caused such severe erosion that the governor of Alaska declared a state of emergency—ice scour created a cove 350 feet long and 200 feet inland, endangering several structures and severely undercutting the city dock. The village’s main port is the only one on the western Alaska coast for oceangoing ships and serves as the supply center for over 50 villages in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. In response to the 1995 emergency, the village placed rock along 600 linear feet of the riverbank and dock. This was the beginning of an 8,000-foot bank stabilization seawall that cost $24 million. Currently, the Corps has a project under way to repair this seawall by placing more rock and by replacing the steel tieback system and placing steel wale on the inland side of the pipe piles. The project will also extend the seawall 1,200 feet so that it protects the entrance to Bethel’s small boat harbor. The initial cost estimate for this project in 2001 was over $4.7 million, with average annual costs of $374,000. During our review of these villages, we found instances where federal agencies invested in infrastructure projects without knowledge of the villages’ plans to relocate. For example, the Denali Commission and the Department of Housing and Urban Development were unaware of Newtok’s relocation plans when they decided to jointly fund a new health clinic in the village for $1.1 million (using fiscal year 2002 and 2003 funds). During our site visit to Newtok, we observed that the new clinic’s building materials had already been delivered to the dock. Once it is constructed and the village is ready to relocate, moving a building the size of the new clinic across the river may be difficult and costly. Neither the Denali Commission nor the Department of Housing and Urban Development realized that the plans for Newtok’s relocation were moving forward, even though legislation for completing a land exchange deal with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was first introduced in March 2002. Similarly, in Koyukuk, the FAA was initially unaware of the village’s relocation plans when it solicited bids for a $10.3 million state project to increase the grade of and lengthen the village’s existing runway, according to FAA officials. When we further discussed this with FAA officials, however, they noted that it is the state of Alaska that prioritizes and selects the transportation projects that receive FAA grants. According to these FAA officials, who awarded the grant for Koyukuk’s runway, state transportation officials were aware of the village’s decision to relocate. Although we recognize that development and maintenance of critical infrastructure, such as health clinics and runways, are necessary as villages find ways to address flooding and erosion, we question whether limited federal funds for these projects are being expended in the most effective and efficient manner possible. The Denali Commission, cognizant of the stated purpose of its authorizing act to deliver services in a cost-effective manner, has developed a draft investment policy intended to guide the process of project selection and ensure prudent investment of federal funds. The draft policy provides guidance for designers to tailor facilities based on six primary investment indicators: size of community and population trends, imminent environmental threats, proximity/access to existing services and/or facilities, per capita investment benchmarks, unit construction costs, and economic potential. These indicators provide the Denali Commission and its partners with an investment framework that will guide selection and funding for sustainable projects. Flooding and erosion issues fall under the “imminent environmental threats” indicator. The commission has applied this draft policy to Shishmaref, which requested a new clinic at its current location. Given that the village is in the process of relocating, the commission awarded $150,000 to repair the existing clinic in Shishmaref in lieu of building a new clinic. In addition, the Denali Commission recognizes that systematic planning and coordination on a local, regional, and statewide basis are necessary to achieve the most effective results from investments in infrastructure, economic development, and training, and has signed a memorandum of understanding with 31 federal and state agencies to achieve this goal. This memorandum of understanding could serve as a vehicle by which other federal agencies would follow the lead of the Denali Commission regarding decisions to invest in infrastructure for communities threatened by flooding and erosion. The unique circumstances of Alaska Native villages and their inability to qualify for assistance under a variety of federal flooding and erosion programs may require special measures to ensure that the villages receive certain needed services. Alaska Native villages, which are predominately remote and small, often face barriers not commonly found in other areas of the United States, such as harsh climate, limited access and infrastructure, high fuel and shipping prices, short construction seasons, and ice-rich permafrost soils. In addition, many of the federal programs to prevent and control flooding and erosion are not a good fit for the Alaska Native villages because of the requirement that economic costs of the project not exceed the economic benefits. Federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska Native village representatives that we spoke with identified several alternatives for Congress that could help mitigate the barriers that villages face in obtaining federal services. These alternatives include (1) expanding the role of the Denali Commission to include responsibilities for managing a flooding and erosion assistance program, (2) directing the Corps and NRCS to include social and environmental factors in their cost/benefit analyses for projects requested by Alaska Native villages, and (3) waiving the federal cost-sharing requirement for flooding and erosion projects for Alaska Native villages. In addition, GAO identified a fourth alternative—authorizing the bundling of funds from various agencies to address flooding and erosion problems in these villages. Each of these alternatives has the potential to increase the level of federal services provided to Alaska Native villages and can be considered individually or in any combination. However, adopting some of these alternatives will require consideration of a number of important factors, including the potential to set a precedent for other communities and programs as well as resulting budgetary implications. While we did not determine the cost or the national policy implications associated with any of the alternatives, these are important considerations when determining appropriate federal action. Congress may want to consider expanding the role of the Denali Commission by directing that federal funding for flooding and erosion studies and projects in Alaska Native villages go through the commission. Currently, the Denali Commission does not have explicit responsibility for flooding and erosion programs. This alternative would authorize the Denali Commission to establish a program that conducts studies and constructs projects to mitigate flooding and control erosion in Alaska Native villages that would otherwise not qualify under Corps and NRCS flooding and erosion programs. The commission could set priorities for its studies and projects and respond to the problems of those villages most in need, and it could enter into a memorandum of agreement with the Corps or other related agencies to carry out these studies and projects. One of the factors to consider in adopting this alternative is that additional funding may be required. This alternative is similar to the current proposal in S. 295 that would expand the role of the Denali Commission to include a transportation function. S. 295 would authorize the commission to construct marine connections (such as connecting small docks, boat ramps, and port facilities) and other transportation access infrastructure for communities that would otherwise lack access to the National Highway System. Under the bill, the commission would designate the location of the transportation project and set priorities for constructing segments of the system. A second alternative is for Congress to direct the Corps and NRCS to include social and environmental factors in its cost/benefit analysis for flooding and erosion projects for Alaska Native villages. Under this alternative, the Corps would not only consider social and environmental factors, but would also incorporate them into its cost/benefit analysis. Similarly, NRCS for its Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program would also incorporate social and environmental factors into its cost/benefit analysis. To capture these factors even when they cannot be easily quantified, the Corps and NRCS may have to consider these factors explicitly. Several Alaska Native entities have raised this issue with the Corps and the Alaska congressional delegation. For example, the Native village of Unalakleet has led efforts to have the Corps revise its cost/benefit analysis. As part of these efforts, the village has worked with state and federal agencies; the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents Native corporations statewide; and the Alaska congressional delegation. One implication of adopting this alternative for Alaska Native villages may be that it could set a precedent for flooding and erosion control projects in other communities. This alternative is intended to benefit small and remote villages that often fail to qualify for assistance because the cost of the study or project exceeds the benefits. The number of villages that may be able to qualify for a study or project under this alternative will depend on the extent to which the Corps and NRCS incorporate social and environmental factors into their calculations. However, if more villages qualify for projects under this approach, the increase could have an impact on the amount of funds and resources that the Corps and NRCS have available for these efforts. Congress is currently considering a bill that would direct the Corps to approve certain projects that do not necessarily meet the cost/benefit requirement. In H.R. 2557, the Corps would be authorized to provide assistance to communities with remote and subsistence harbors that meet certain criteria. In particular, for studies of harbor and navigational improvements, the Secretary of the Army could recommend a project without the need to demonstrate that it is justified solely by net national economic development benefits, if the Secretary determines that, among other considerations, (1) the community to be served by the project is at least 70 miles from the nearest surface-accessible commercial port and has no direct rail or highway link to another community served by a surface- accessible port or harbor or is in Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa; (2) the harbor is economically critical such that over 80 percent of the goods transported through the harbor would be consumed within the community; and (3) the long-term viability of the community would be threatened without the harbor and navigation improvement. These criteria would apply to many remote and subsistence harbors in Alaska Native villages. A third alternative is to waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for flooding and erosion projects for Alaska Native villages. As required by law, the Corps currently imposes a cost-share of between 25 and 50 percent of project planning and construction costs. These sums, which are generally in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, are difficult for villages to generate. This difficulty has been one of the more common criticisms of the Corps’ program. For example, the village of Unalakleet had difficulty obtaining funding for its local cost-share requirement for a project. Adopting this alternative for Alaska Native villages would require an assessment of several factors, including setting a precedent for other flooding and erosion control projects in other communities as well as budgetary implications. In H.R. 2557, Congress is considering waiving the cost-sharing provisions for studies and projects in certain areas. In this bill, the Secretary of the Army would be required to waive up to $500,000 of the local cost-sharing requirements for all studies and projects in several locations, including land in the state of Alaska conveyed to Alaska Native Village Corporations. Congress could also consider authorizing the bundling of funds from various agencies to respond to flooding and erosion in Alaska Native villages. Under this alternative, Alaska Native villages could consolidate and integrate funding from flooding and erosion programs from various federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to conduct an erosion study or to help fund the local cost share of a Corps project. Doing so would potentially allow Alaska Native villages to use available federal assistance for flooding and erosion more effectively and efficiently. By law, Indian tribal governments are currently allowed to integrate their federally funded employment, training, and related services programs from various agencies into a single, coordinated, comprehensive program that reduces administrative costs by consolidating administrative functions. Many Alaska Native villages participate in this program. Several bills have been introduced to authorize tribal governments also to bundle federal funding for economic development programs and for alcohol and substance abuse programs. For example, in the 106th, 107th, and 108th sessions of Congress, bills were introduced to authorize the integration and coordination of federal funding for community, business, and economic development of Native American communities. Under these bills, tribal governments or their agencies may identify federal assistance programs to be integrated for the purpose of supporting economic development projects. Similarly, in the 107th and 108th Congresses, S. 210 and S. 285 were introduced to authorize, respectively, the integration and consolidation of alcohol and substance abuse programs and services provided by tribal governments. Alaska Native villages that are not making plans to relocate, but are severely affected by flooding and erosion, must find ways to respond to these problems. However, many of these villages have difficulty finding assistance under several federal programs, largely because the economic costs of the proposed project to control flooding and erosion exceed the expected economic benefits. As a result, many private homes and other infrastructure continue to be threatened and are in danger from flooding and erosion. In addition, many Alaska Native villages that are small, remote, and have a subsistence lifestyle, lack the resources to help them respond to flooding and erosion. Given the unique circumstances of Alaska Native villages, special measures may be required to ensure that these communities receive assistance in responding to flooding and erosion. Alaska Native villages that cannot be protected from flooding and erosion through engineering structures and must relocate face a particularly daunting challenge. These villages are working with federal and state agencies to find ways to address this challenge. Any potential solution, however, whether a single erosion protection project or full relocation, goes through stages of planning and execution that can take years to complete. In the interim, investment decisions must be made regarding delivery of services such as building new structures or renovating and upgrading existing structures. Such decisions for villages should be made in light of the status of their efforts to address flooding and erosion. We identified a number of instances where projects were approved and designed without considering a village’s relocation plans. Investing in infrastructure that cannot be easily moved or may be costly to move may not be the best use of limited federal funds. It is encouraging that the Denali Commission is working on a policy to ensure that investments are made in a conscientious and sustainable manner for villages threatened by flooding and erosion. Successful implementation of such a policy will depend in part on its adoption by individual federal agencies that also fund infrastructure development in Alaska Native villages. In order to ensure that federal funds are expended in the most effective and efficient manner possible, we recommend that the federal cochairperson of the Denali Commission, in conjunction with the state of Alaska cochairperson, adopt a policy to guide future investment decisions and project designs in Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion. The policy should ensure that (1) the Commission is aware of villages’ efforts to address flooding and erosion and (2) projects are designed appropriately in light of a village’s plans to address its flooding and erosion problems. Determining the appropriate level of service for Alaska Native villages is a policy decision that rests with Congress. We present four alternatives that Congress may wish to consider as it deliberates over how, and to what extent, federal programs could better respond to flooding and erosion in Alaska Native villages. In any such decision, two factors that would be important to consider are the cost and the national policy implications of implementing any alternative or combination of alternatives. If Congress would like to provide additional federal assistance to Alaska Native villages, it may wish to consider directing relevant executive agencies and the Denali Commission to assess the cost and policy implications of implementing the alternatives that we have identified or others that may be appropriate. We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, and Transportation; the Denali Commission; and the state of Alaska. The Departments of Defense, Housing and Urban Development, and the Interior, as well as the Denali Commission and the state of Alaska, provided official written comments. (See appendixes IV through VIII, respectively, for the full text of the comments received from these agencies and our responses.) The comments were generally technical in nature with few comments on the report’s overall findings, recommendation, and alternatives. The Departments of Health and Human Services and Transportation provided informal technical comments, and the Department of Agriculture had no comments on the report. We made changes to the draft report, where appropriate, based on the technical comments provided by the seven entities that commented on the draft report. The Denali Commission was the only entity to comment on our recommendation that the commission adopt an investment policy. The commission agreed with the recommendation and noted that such a policy should help avoid flawed decision making in the future. Furthermore, the commission commented that it was not sufficient for it alone to have an investment policy, but believed that all funding agencies should use a similar policy to guide investments. We acknowledge the commission’s concerns that other funding agencies should also make sound investment decisions. As noted in our report, the Denali Commission has signed a memorandum of understanding with 31 federal and state agencies with the goal of systematic planning and coordination for investments in infrastructure, economic development, and training, and we believe that this memorandum could serve as a vehicle by which other federal agencies would follow the lead of the commission regarding decisions to invest in communities. Of the four alternatives presented in the report, the alternative to funnel funding for flooding and erosion projects through the Denali Commission received the most comments. The Denali Commission, the U.S. Army (commenting on behalf of the Department of Defense), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development all raised some concerns about this alternative. The Denali Commission commented that it is not convinced that expanding its role to include responsibilities for managing a flooding and erosion program is the appropriate response. The Army commented that the alternative to expand the role of the Denali Commission to mange a flooding and erosion program might exceed the capabilities of the organization. Lastly, the Department of Housing and Urban Development commented that the Denali Commission, as an independent agency, does not have the capacity to be fully integrated with the efforts of federal agencies to address this issue. Moreover, while each of these entities recognized the need for improved coordination of federal efforts to address flooding and erosion in Alaska Native villages, none of them provided any specific suggestions on how or by whom this should be accomplished. As discussed in our report, the Denali Commission currently does not have the authority to manage a flooding and erosion program, and should Congress choose this alternative, the commission would need to develop such a program. Consequently, we still believe that expanding the role of the commission continues to be a possible option for helping to mitigate the barriers that villages face in obtaining federal services. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture, the Army, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, and Transportation, as well as to the federal and state cochairs of the Denali Commission, the Governor of the state of Alaska, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested Members of Congress. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX. The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the military construction appropriation bill directed GAO to study Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion. In response to this direction and subsequent discussions with committee staff, we (1) determined the extent to which Alaska Native villages are affected by flooding and erosion; (2) identified federal and Alaska state programs available to respond to flooding and erosion and assessed the extent to which federal assistance has been provided to Alaska Native villages; (3) determined the status of efforts, including cost estimates, to respond to flooding and erosion in the villages of Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, Point Hope, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet; and (4) identified alternatives that Congress may wish to consider when providing assistance for flooding and erosion of Alaska Native villages. In addition, during the course of our work we became concerned about the possible inefficient use of federal funds for building infrastructure in villages that were planning to relocate. As a result, we are including information regarding these concerns in this report. To determine which Alaska Native villages are affected by flooding and erosion, we reviewed Alaska and federal agency reports and databases that contained information on flooding and erosion. We interviewed officials from Alaska and federal agencies, such as the Alaska Division of Emergency Services, the Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, who are involved in addressing flooding and erosion problems. We also interviewed Alaska Native officials from the selected villages, as well as officials from Native village and regional corporations, such as Tikigaq, the Association of Village Council Presidents, and Kawarek. For the purposes of this report we defined an Alaska Native village as a village that (1) was deemed eligible as a Native village under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and (2) has a corresponding Alaska Native entity that is recognized by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. We identified federal flooding and erosion programs by searching the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and by using other information. We reviewed applicable federal laws and regulations for these programs. We also reviewed program file records and interviewed federal program officials to determine the extent to which Alaska Native villages have been provided federal assistance. In addition, to determine the Alaska state programs that are available to villages for addressing flooding and erosion, we interviewed appropriate state officials from the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the Division of Emergency Services, and the Department of Community and Economic Development. We also discussed these programs and the assistance provided with selected village representatives. While the committee directed us to include six villages, we added three more—Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref—based on discussions with congressional staff and with federal and Alaska state officials familiar with flooding and erosion problems. To determine the status of efforts, including cost estimates, to address flooding and erosion at these nine selected villages, we reviewed federal and state databases and studies. We also reviewed analyses performed by the Corps and by other federal, state, and local agencies. We visited only four villages—Bethel, Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref—due to the high cost of travel in Alaska. We selected three of the four villages to visit that were in imminent danger (we visited Bethel because in order to reach Newtok we had to go through Bethel). We interviewed village representatives from each of the nine villages. We also interviewed state and federal officials involved in the efforts to address flooding and erosion for each of the nine villages. We identified and evaluated Corps studies that addressed these problems with particular attention to cost estimates. We also assessed the nature and applicability of these cost studies. To determine what alternatives Congress may wish to consider in responding to flooding and erosion of Alaska Native villages, we interviewed local, state, and federal officials, officials from the Alaska Federation of Natives, and Kawarek representatives. During these interviews, we asked people to identify alternatives that they believed would address impediments to the delivery of flooding and erosion services. We also obtained and reviewed prior congressional bills that addressed Alaska Native issues. We conducted our review from February 2003 through October 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Table 6 shows the list of the 13 regional corporations and the corresponding nonprofit arms. These nonprofit organizations provide social services to Alaska Native villages and also help Alaska Natives respond to problems, including those dealing with flooding and erosion. Cheesh-Na Tribe (formerly the Native Village of Chistochina) Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove Native Village of Atka Native Village of BelkofskiNative Village of False Pass Native Village of Nelson Lagoon Native Village of Nikolski Pauloff Harbor VillageSaint George Island (see Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands) Saint Paul Island (see Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul and St. George Islands) Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point Village Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska Native Village of UngaNative Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government (formerly Native Village of Barrow) Kaktovik Village (aka Barter Island) Native Village of Nuiqsut (aka Nooiksut) Native Village of Point Hope Native Village of Point Lay Native Village of Brevig Mission Chinik Eskimo Community (Golovin) Native Village of Diomede (aka Inalik) King Island Native CommunityNative Village of Saint Michael Native Village of White Mountain Native Village of Chignik Lagoon Village of Clark’s Point Curyung Tribal Council (formerly Native Village of Dillingham) New Koliganek Village Council (formerly Koliganek Village) Native Village of Perryville Native Village of Pilot Point Native Village of Port Heiden Portage Creek Village (aka Ohgsenakale) Algaaciq Native Village (St. Mary's) Asa'carsarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Mountain Village) Native Village of Chuathbaluk (Russian Mission, Kuskokwim) Native Village of Goodnews Bay Native Village of Hooper Bay Iqurmuit Traditional Council (formerly Native Village of Russian Mission) Native Village of Kwinhagak (aka Quinhagak) Lime Village Native Village of Marshall (aka Fortuna Ledge) Nunakauyarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Toksook Bay) Orutsararmuit Native Village (aka Bethel) Native Village of Pitka's Point Native Village of Scammon Bay Native Village of Chanega (aka Chenega) Native Village of Eyak (Cordova) Native Village of Nanwalek (aka English Bay) Alatna Village Birch Creek Tribe (formerly listed as Birch Creek Village) Evansville Village (aka Bettles Field) Native Village of Fort Yukon Galena Village (aka Louden Village) Organized Village of Grayling (aka Holikachuk) Koniag Village of AfognakNative Village of Akhiok Native Village of Larsen Bay Chilkat Indian Village (Klukwan) The Army commented on our alternative to expand the role of the Denali Commission, which is discussed in the Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section of this report. We also modified the report on the basis of the technical comments that the Army gave us, as appropriate. In addition, discussed below are GAO’s corresponding detailed responses to some of the Army’s comments. 1. We disagree with the Corps’ statement that the Flood Control Act of 1936 requires benefits to exceed costs for flood control projects. The pertinent provision of the act states that “it is the sense of Congress that . . . the Federal Government should improve or participate in the improvement of navigable waters or their tributaries . . . if the benefits . . . are in excess of the estimated costs.” 33 U.S.C. § 701a. This provision, while setting out a statement of Congressional policy, does not establish a legal requirement that benefits exceed costs, nor does it prohibit carrying out a project where costs exceed benefits. We have included a reference to this provision in the report’s discussion of the Corps’ guidelines for evaluating water resource projects. 2. We agree that it is not realistic for a village to go without a health clinic for 10 years. Our report states that development and maintenance of critical infrastructure, such as health clinics and runways, is necessary as villages find ways to address flooding and erosion. However, given limited federal funds, agencies must explore potentially less costly options for meeting a village’s needs until it is able to relocate. 3. As noted in our report, if Congress decides to provide additional federal assistance to Alaska Native villages, it may wish to consider directing relevant executive agencies as well as the Denali Commission to assess the cost and policy implications of implementing the alternatives. 4. The names for the Alaska Native entities used in appendix III of this report are from the official list of federally recognized Indian entities published by the Department of the Interior in the Federal Register (see 67 Fed. Reg. 46328, July 12, 2002). The Denali Commission commented on our recommendation and the alternative to expand its role, both of which are discussed in the Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section of this report. In addition, discussed below are GAO’s corresponding detailed responses to some of the Denali Commission’s general comments. 1. We agree that the Corps can determine whether preventing or minimizing flooding and erosion is technically and financially feasible. Under the Tribal Partnership Program, authorized by section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Pub. L. No. 106-541, 114 Stat. 2572, 2588-2589 (2000)), the Corps is currently examining impacts of coastal erosion due to continued climate change and other factors in the Alaska Native villages of Bethel, Dillingham, Shishmaref, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Unalakleet and Newtok. Congress provided $2 million for these activities in fiscal year 2003. However, other federal agencies, such as the NRCS, also have the ability to conduct feasibility analyses. 2. We acknowledge the commission’s desire for a larger role for Alaska state and local governments in developing and executing response strategies and in helping to prioritize the use of scarce resources. However, whether or not the state and local governments choose to expend their own resources to become more involved in responding to flooding and erosion issues is entirely a state or local government decision. Since this decision would involve the expenditure of state or local government funds, rather than federal funds, it is outside the scope of our report. The state of Alaska provided technical comments from the Division of Emergency Services and the Department of Community and Economic Development, which we incorporated as appropriate. In addition, discussed below are GAO’s corresponding detailed responses to some of the state’s comments. 1. The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the military construction appropriation bill directed GAO to study at least six Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion—Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Point Hope, and Unalakleet—we added three more— Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref—based on discussions with congressional staff and with federal and Alaska state officials familiar with flooding and erosion problems. As our report states, four of the nine villages, Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok and Shishmaref are in imminent danger from flooding and erosion. We agree that the remaining five villages may not be the most at risk from flooding and erosion. 2. It is not our intent to expand the role of the Denali Commission to include a disaster response and recovery component. In addition to those named above, José Alfredo Gómez, Judith Williams, and Ned Woodward made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to the report were Mark Bondo, John Delicath, Chase Huntley, Marmar Nadji, Cynthia Norris, and Amy Webbink. The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Summary: Approximately 6,600 miles of Alaska's coastline and many of the low-lying areas along the state's rivers are subject to severe flooding and erosion. Most of Alaska's Native villages are located on the coast or on riverbanks. In addition to the many federal and Alaska state agencies that respond to flooding and erosion, Congress established the Denali Commission in 1998 to, among other things, provide economic development services and to meet infrastructure needs in rural Alaska communities. Congress directed GAO to study Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion and to 1) determine the extent to which these villages are affected, 2) identify federal and state flooding and erosion programs, 3) determine the current status of efforts to respond to flooding and erosion in nine villages, and 4) identify alternatives that Congress may wish to consider when providing assistance for flooding and erosion. Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, of Alaska Native villages to some extent. While many of the problems are long-standing, various studies indicate that coastal villages are becoming more susceptible to flooding and erosion due in part to rising temperatures. The Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service administer key programs for constructing flooding and erosion control projects. However, small and remote Alaska Native villages often fail to qualify for assistance under these programs--largely because of agency requirements that the expected costs of the project not exceed its benefits. Even villages that do meet the cost/benefit criteria may still not receive assistance if they cannot meet the cost-share requirement for the project. Of the nine villages we were directed to review, four--Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref--are in imminent danger from flooding and erosion and are planning to relocate, while the remaining five are in various stages of responding to these problems. Costs for relocating are expected to be high. For example, the cost estimates for relocating Kivalina range from $100 million to over $400 million. Relocation is a daunting process that may take several years to accomplish. During that process, federal agencies must make wise investment decisions, yet GAO found instances where federal agencies invested in infrastructure at the villages' existing sites without knowledge of their plans to relocate. GAO, federal and state officials, and village representatives identified some alternatives that could increase service delivery for Alaska Native villages, although many important factors must first be considered: (1) expand the role of the Denali Commission; (2) direct federal agencies to consider social and environmental factors in their cost/benefit analyses; (3) waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for these projects, and (4) authorize the "bundling" of funds from various federal agencies.