This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-142 
entitled 'Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and 
Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance' which was released on 
December 12, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Committees:

December 2003:

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES:

Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal 
Assistance:

GAO-04-142:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-142, a report to the Senate and House Committees 
on Appropriations 

Why GAO Did This Study:

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.

What GAO Found:

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:
* Expand the role of the Denali Commission.
* Direct federal agencies to consider social and environmental 
factors in their cost/benefit analyses.
* Waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for these projects.
* Authorize the “bundling” of funds from various federal agencies.

What GAO Recommends:

GAO presents to Congress a matter for consideration that directs 
federal agencies and the Denali Commission to assess the feasibility 
of alternatives for responding to flooding and erosion. In addition, 
GAO recommends that the Denali Commission adopt a policy to guide 
future infrastructure investments in Alaska Native villages affected 
by flooding and erosion. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-142.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 
on the link above. For more information, contact Anu Mittal at (202) 
512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Most Alaska Native Villages Are Affected to Some Extent by Flooding and 
Erosion: 

Federal Flooding and Erosion Programs Provide Limited Assistance to 
Alaska Native Villages; Some State Programs Are Also Available: 

Four Villages in Imminent Danger Are Planning to Relocate, and the 
Remaining Five Villages Are Taking Other Actions: 

Alternatives for Addressing Barriers That Villages Face in Obtaining 
Federal Services: 

Conclusion: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofit Arms: 

Appendix III: List of 184 Affected Alaska Native Villages by ANCSA 
Region: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Army: 

GAO's Comments: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Denali Commission: 

GAO's Comments: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the State of Alaska: 

GAO's Comments: 

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Number of ANCSA-Eligible Villages Affected by Flooding and 
Erosion, by Region: 

Table 2: Authorities that Address Flooding and Erosion under the Corps' 
Continuing Authorities Program: 

Table 3: NRCS Programs That Respond to Flooding and Erosion: 

Table 4: Other Key Federal Programs That Can Address Problems Caused by 
Flooding and Erosion: 

Table 5: Nine Alaska Native Villages' Efforts to Address Flooding and 
Erosion: 

Table 6: List of ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofit 
Arms: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Map of Alaska Showing Major Rivers, Oceans, and Mountain 
Ranges: 

Figure 2: Sea Erosion at Shishmaref (June 2003): 

Figure 3: Subsistence Harvesting of a Seal in Kivalina (June 2003): 

Figure 4: Locations of 184 Native Villages Affected by Flooding and 
Erosion: 

Figure 5: Aerial View of Flooding in Aniak (c. 2002): 

Figure 6: NRCS Seawall Erosion Protection Project at Unalakleet (c. 
2000): 

Figure 7: Map of Alaska with Nine Villages Highlighted: 

Figure 8: Aerial view of Kivalina (c. 1999): 

Figure 9: Bluff Erosion and Permafrost Melting in Shishmaref (c. 2002): 

Figure 10: Aerial View of Ice Jam and Flooding at Koyukuk, Near the 
Confluence of the Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers (c. 2001): 

Figure 11: Airport Runway at the Native Village of Point Hope (c. 2001): 

Abbreviations: 

ANCSA: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act:

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:

GAO: General Accounting Office:

NAHASDA: Native American Housing Assistance Self-Determination Act of 
1996:

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service:

WRDA: Water Resources Development Act:

Letter December 12, 2003:

The Honorable Ted Stevens: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate:

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable David R. Obey: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives:

Alaska's shoreline is subject to periodic, yet severe, erosion. During 
these episodes, over 100 feet of land can be lost in a single storm. 
The state also has thousands of miles of riverbanks that are prone to 
annual flooding during the spring thaw. These shorelines and riverbanks 
serve as home to over 200 Native villages whose inhabitants hunt and 
fish for subsistence. Coastal and river flooding and erosion cause 
millions of dollars of property damage in Alaska Native villages, 
damaging or destroying homes, public buildings, and airport runways. 
Because Alaska Native villages are often in remote areas not accessible 
by roads, village airport runways are lifelines for many villages, and 
any threat to the runways either from flooding or erosion may be a 
threat to the villages' survival. Flooding and erosion can also destroy 
meat drying racks and damage food cellars, threatening the winter food 
supply and the traditional subsistence lifestyle of Alaska Natives.

Since 1977, the state, and in some cases the federal government, has 
responded to more than 190 disaster emergencies in Alaska, many in 
response to these problems. Several federal and state agencies are 
directly or indirectly involved in providing assistance for flooding 
and erosion in Alaska. In addition, the Denali Commission, created by 
Congress in 1998, while not directly responsible for responding to 
flooding and erosion, is charged with addressing crucial needs of rural 
Alaska communities, 
particularly isolated Alaska Native villages.[Footnote 1] The 
commission is composed of a federal and a state cochair and 
representatives from local agencies, as well as Alaska Native, public, 
and private entities. For fiscal year 2003, the commission was provided 
with almost $99 million in federal funds to carry out its mission. The 
purpose of the commission is to (1) deliver the services of the federal 
government in the most cost-effective manner practicable; (2) provide 
job training and other economic development services in rural 
communities; and (3) promote rural development and provide 
infrastructure such as water, sewer, and communication systems.

The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the military construction 
appropriation bill directed GAO to study Alaska Native villages 
affected by flooding and erosion.[Footnote 2] In response to this 
direction and subsequent discussions with your staff, we (1) determined 
the extent to which Alaska Native villages are affected by flooding and 
erosion; (2) identified federal and Alaska state programs that provide 
assistance for flooding and erosion and assessed the extent to which 
federal assistance has been provided to Alaska Native villages; (3) 
determined the status of efforts, including cost estimates, to respond 
to flooding and erosion in select villages seriously affected by 
flooding and erosion; and (4) identified alternatives that Congress may 
wish to consider when providing assistance for flooding and erosion of 
Alaska Native villages.

To address the objectives for this report, we reviewed federal and 
state flooding and erosion studies and project documents and 
interviewed federal and state agency officials and representatives from 
each of the nine villages. We also visited four of the nine villages. 
While the committee directed us to include at least six villages in our 
study--Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Point Hope, and Unalakleet-
-we added three more--Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref--based on 
discussions with congressional staff and with federal and Alaska state 
officials familiar with flooding and erosion problems. Appendix I 
provides further details about the scope and methodology of our review.

Results in Brief:

According to federal and state officials in Alaska, 184 out of 213, or 
86.4 percent of Alaska Native villages experience some level of 
flooding and erosion, but it is difficult to assess the severity of the 
problem because quantifiable data are not available for remote 
locations. Native villages on the coast or along rivers are subject to 
both annual and episodic flooding and erosion. Various studies and 
reports indicate that coastal villages in Alaska are becoming more 
susceptible to flooding and erosion in part because rising temperatures 
cause protective shore ice to form later in the year, leaving the 
villages vulnerable to fall storms. For example, the barrier island 
village of Shishmaref, which is less than 1,320 feet wide, lost 125 
feet of beach to erosion during an October 1997 storm. In addition, 
villages in low-lying areas along riverbanks or in river deltas are 
susceptible to flooding and erosion caused by ice jams, snow and 
glacial melts, rising sea levels, and heavy rainfall. For many 
villages, ice jams that form in the Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers during 
the spring ice breakup cause the most frequent and severe floods by 
creating a buildup of water behind the jam. The resulting accumulation 
of water can flood entire villages. While flooding and erosion affect 
most Alaska Native villages, federal and state officials noted that 
Alaska has significant data gaps because of a lack of monitoring 
equipment in remote locations. This lack of baseline data makes it 
difficult to assess the severity of the problem.

The Continuing Authorities Program, administered by the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, and the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
Program, administered by the Department of Agriculture's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, are the principal federal programs that 
provide assistance for the prevention or control of flooding and 
erosion. However, small and remote Alaska Native villages often fail to 
qualify for assistance under these programs because they do not meet 
program criteria. For example, according to the Corps' guidelines for 
evaluating water resource projects, the Corps generally cannot 
undertake a project when the economic costs exceed the expected 
benefits. With few exceptions, Alaska Native villages' requests for 
assistance under this program are denied because the project costs 
usually outweigh expected benefits. Even villages that meet the Corps' 
cost/benefit criteria may still fail to qualify if they cannot meet 
cost-share requirements for the project. The Department of 
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service's Watershed 
Protection and Flood Prevention Program also requires a cost/benefit 
analysis similar to that of the Corps. As a result, few Alaska Native 
villages qualify for assistance under this program. However, the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service has other programs that have 
provided limited assistance to these villages--in part because these 
programs consider additional social and environmental factors in 
developing their cost/benefit analysis. Besides programs administered 
by the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, there are several other federal and state programs that offer 
limited assistance to Alaska Native villages in responding to flooding 
and erosion. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration can 
assist with rebuilding or repairing airstrips that are affected by 
flooding and erosion, and the Alaska Department of Community and 
Economic Development provides coordination and technical assistance to 
communities to help reduce losses and damage from flooding and erosion. 
However, these programs are generally not prevention programs, but are 
available to assist communities in preparing for or responding to the 
consequences of flooding and erosion.

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 making plans to relocate; the remaining villages 
are taking other actions. Kivalina, Newtok, and Shishmaref are working 
with relevant federal agencies to determine the suitability of possible 
relocation sites, while Koyukuk is in the early stages of planning for 
relocation. Because of the high cost of materials and transportation in 
remote parts of Alaska, the cost of relocation for these villages is 
expected to be high. For example, the Corps estimates that the cost to 
relocate Kivalina, which has a population of about 385, could range 
from $100 million for design and construction of infrastructure, 
including a gravel pad, at one site and up to $400 million for just the 
cost of building a gravel pad at another site. Cost estimates for 
relocating the other three villages are not yet available. The five 
villages not planning to relocate--Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Point 
Hope, and Unalakleet--are in various stages of responding to their 
flooding and erosion problems. For example, two of these villages, 
Kaktovik and Point Hope, are studying ways to prevent flooding of 
specific infrastructure, such as the airport runway. In addition, 
Bethel, a regional hub in southwest Alaska with a population of about 
5,471, has a project under way to stop erosion of its riverbank. The 
project involves repairing an existing seawall and extending it 1,200 
feet to protect the entrance to the village's small boat harbor, at an 
initial cost estimate of more than $4.7 million and average annual 
costs of $374,000.

During our review of the nine 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). While we recognize that development and maintenance of 
critical infrastructure, such as health clinics and runways, are 
necessary as villages find ways to respond to flooding and erosion, we 
question whether limited federal funds for these projects are being 
expended in the most effective and efficient manner. Had the agencies 
known of the village's relocation plans they could have explored other, 
potentially less costly, options for meeting the village's needs, until 
it is able to relocate. The Denali Commission has recognized this issue 
as a concern and 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. We are 
recommending that the Denali Commission adopt a policy that will guide 
future infrastructure investments and project designs in villages 
affected 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 they 
receive certain needed services. Federal and Alaska state officials and 
Alaska Native village representatives that we spoke with identified 
several alternatives that could help mitigate the barriers that 
villages face in obtaining federal services. The alternatives discussed 
below may be considered individually or in 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.

* Expand the role of the Denali Commission to include responsibility 
for managing a flooding and erosion assistance program, which it 
currently does not have.

* Direct the Corps and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to 
consider social and environmental factors in their cost benefit 
analyses for projects requested by Alaska Native villages.

* Waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for flooding and erosion 
programs for Alaska Native villages.

In addition, as a fourth alternative, GAO identified the bundling of 
funds from various agencies to address flooding and erosion problems in 
Alaska Native villages. While we did not determine the cost or the 
national policy implications associated with any of these alternatives, 
these costs and implications are important considerations in 
determining the appropriate level of federal services that should be 
available to respond to flooding and erosion in Alaska Native villages. 
Consequently, we are providing Congress with a matter for consideration 
that it direct relevant executive agencies and the Denali Commission to 
assess the feasibility of each of the alternatives, as appropriate. In 
addition, the Denali Commission may want to comment on the implications 
of expanding its role.

Background:

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.[Footnote 3] (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.

Figure 1: Map of Alaska Showing Major Rivers, Oceans, and Mountain 
Ranges:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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.):

Figure 2: Sea Erosion at Shishmaref (June 2003):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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.[Footnote 4] 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).[Footnote 5] 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.

Figure 3: Subsistence Harvesting of a Seal in Kivalina (June 2003):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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.[Footnote 6] 
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.

Multiple Entities Make Up the Alaska Native Village Governing 
Structure:

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.[Footnote 7] 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.[Footnote 
8] (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.):

Several Federal and State Agencies Are Responsible for Responding to 
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.[Footnote 9] 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.

Most Alaska Native Villages Are Affected to Some Extent by Flooding and 
Erosion:

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.

Coastal or River Flooding and Erosion Affects 86 Percent of Alaska 
Native Villages:

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.

Figure 4: Locations of 184 Native Villages Affected by Flooding and 
Erosion:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Table 1: Number of ANCSA-Eligible Villages Affected by Flooding and 
Erosion, by Region:

Region: Ahtna; Alaska Native villages: 8; Alaska Native villages 
affected by flooding and erosion: 4.

Region: Aleut; Alaska Native villages: 13; Alaska Native villages 
affected by flooding and erosion: 13.

Region: Arctic Slope; Alaska Native villages: 8; Alaska Native 
villages affected by flooding and erosion: 6.

Region: Bering Straits; Alaska Native villages: 20; Alaska Native 
villages affected by flooding and erosion: 18.

Region: Bristol Bay; Alaska Native villages: 29; Alaska Native 
villages affected by flooding and erosion: 27.

Region: Calista; Alaska Native villages: 56; Alaska Native villages 
affected by flooding and erosion: 49.

Region: Chugach; Alaska Native villages: 5; Alaska Native villages 
affected by flooding and erosion: 4.

Region: Cook Inlet Region; Alaska Native villages: 7; Alaska Native 
villages affected by flooding and erosion: 3.

Region: Doyon; Alaska Native villages: 37; Alaska Native villages 
affected by flooding and erosion: 33.

Region: Koniag; Alaska Native villages: 9[A]; Alaska Native villages 
affected by flooding and erosion: 6.

Region: NANA; Alaska Native villages: 11; Alaska Native villages 
affected by flooding and erosion: 11.

Region: Sealaska; Alaska Native villages: 10; Alaska Native villages 
affected by flooding and erosion: 10.

Region: Total; Alaska Native villages: 213; Alaska Native villages 
affected by flooding and erosion: 184.

Source: GAO.

[A] There are seven additional ANCSA-eligible villages in the Koniag 
region, but they do not have corresponding Alaska Native entities 
recognized by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian 
Affairs.

[End of table]

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.):

Figure 5: Aerial View of Flooding in Aniak (c. 2002):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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.[Footnote 10] 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.

Quantifiable Data Are Not Available to Fully Assess the Severity of the 
Problem:

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.[Footnote 11] 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.: 

Federal Flooding and Erosion Programs Provide Limited Assistance to 
Alaska Native Villages; Some State Programs Are Also Available:

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.

Federal Programs Are Available to Respond to Problems Associated with 
Flooding and Erosion:

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.

Table 2: Authorities that Address Flooding and Erosion under the Corps' 
Continuing Authorities Program:

Program authority: Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946; 
Description: For emergency streambank and shoreline erosion protection 
for public facilities.

Program authority: Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948; 
Description: Authorizes flood control projects.

Program authority: Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954; 
Description: Authorizes flood control activities.

Program authority: Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962; 
Description: Protect shores of publicly owned property from hurricane 
and storm damage.

Program authority: Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968; 
Description: Mitigate shoreline erosion damage cause by federal 
navigation projects.

Source: GAO analysis of Corps program information.

[End of table]

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.

Table 3: NRCS Programs That Respond to Flooding and Erosion:

Program: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program; 
Description: Provides funding for projects that control erosion and 
prevent flooding. Limited to watersheds that are less than 250,000 
acres.

Program: Emergency Watershed Protection Program; Description: Provides 
assistance where there is some imminent threat--usually from some sort 
of erosion caused by river flooding.

Program: Conservation Technical Assistance Program; Description: 
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.

Source: GAO analysis of NRCS program information.

[End of table]

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.

Table 4: Other Key Federal Programs That Can Address Problems Caused by 
Flooding and Erosion:

Agency/program: Federal Emergency Management Agency/National Flood 
Insurance Program; Description: Makes flood insurance available to 
residents of communities that adopt and enforce minimum floodplain 
management requirements.

Agency/program: Federal Emergency Management Agency/Public Assistance 
Program; Description: Provides supplemental federal disaster grant 
assistance for the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-
damaged, publicly owned facilities and the facilities of certain 
nonprofit organizations.

Agency/program: Department of Transportation/Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA); Description: Provides funding through the state 
of Alaska for roads, pedestrian facilities, and snowmobile trails. FHWA 
monies may be available to assist villages with improving or repairing 
roads/boardwalks.

Agency/program: Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA)/Alaska Region Airports Division; Description: 
Provides funding to improve airport infrastructure--including those 
threatened by flooding and erosion. Could 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 FAA design standards. However, the villages 
first need to be relocated first before the new airport is built.

Agency/program: Housing and Urban Development/Community Development 
Block Grants Program; Description: Provides grants to Indian tribes and 
Alaska Native villages to develop economic opportunities and build 
decent housing for low and moderate-income residents.

Agency/program: Housing and Urban Development/Native American Housing 
Assistance Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA); Description: 
Provides grants and technical assistance to Indian tribes and Alaska 
Native villages to develop affordable housing for low-income families. 
NAHASDA funds could also be used to move homes that are threatened by 
flooding and erosion.

Agency/program: Housing and Urban Development/Imminent Threats Grants 
Program; Description: Provides funding to alleviate or remove imminent 
threats to health or safety--including threats posed by flooding and 
erosion.

Agency/program: Bureau of Indian Affairs/Road Maintenance Program; 
Description: Provides funding for maintaining and repairing roads, 
culverts, and airstrips in order to provide a foundation for economic 
development.

Agency/program: Bureau of Indian Affairs/Housing Improvement Program; 
Description: Provides grants and technical assistance to replace 
substandard housing, including housing that is threatened, damaged, or 
lost due to erosion or flooding.

Agency/program: Department of Commerce's Economic Development 
Administration/Economic Adjustment Program; Description: Provides 
assistance to protect and develop the economies of communities. This 
assistance could involve building erosion or flood control structures 
in order to protect village commercial structures, such as canneries.

Source: GAO analysis of agencies' data.

[End of table]

Villages Have Difficulty Qualifying for the Corps' Program:

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.[Footnote 12] 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.[Footnote 13] 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.[Footnote 
14]

Qualifying for Some NRCS Programs Is Less Difficult:

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.[Footnote 15] 
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.[Footnote 16] 
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.

Figure 6: NRCS Seawall Erosion Protection Project at Unalakleet (c. 
2000):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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.[Footnote 17] 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.

Alaska State Programs Are Also Available to Respond to Flooding and 
Erosion:

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 Villages in Imminent Danger Are Planning to Relocate, and the 
Remaining Five Villages Are Taking Other Actions:

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.

Figure 7: Map of Alaska with Nine Villages Highlighted:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Table 5: Nine Alaska Native Villages' Efforts to Address Flooding and 
Erosion:

Alaska Native village: Villages planning to relocate: 

Alaska Native village: Villages planning to relocate: Kivalina; 
Population: 377; Status of efforts: Located on a barrier island that 
is both overcrowded and shrinking. Cost estimates to relocate range 
from $100 million to over $400 million. The village is working with 
the Corps on further site selections for evaluation.

Alaska Native village: Villages planning to relocate: Shishmaref; 
Population: 562; Status of efforts: Located on a barrier island and 
experiencing chronic erosion. Working on constructing a temporary 
seawall while concurrently working on a relocation site selection 
with NRCS.

Alaska Native village: Villages planning to relocate: Newtok; 
Population: 321; Status of efforts: Suffers chronic erosion along its 
riverbank. Legislation for a land exchange with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service became law in November 2003 (Pub. L. No. 108-129). 
Under the Corps' Planning Assistance to States Program, the 
relocation study is continuing.

Alaska Native village: Villages planning to relocate: Koyukuk; 
Population: 101; Status of efforts: Experiences severe flooding from 
Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers. Community is in the process of assessing 
prospective relocation sites.

Alaska Native village: Villages taking other actions: Kaktovik; 
Population: 293; Status of efforts: Airport runway is subject to 
annual flooding. FAA-funded study under way to determine least cost 
alternative.

Alaska Native village: Villages taking other actions: Point Hope; 
Population: 757; Status of efforts: Airport runway experiences 
flooding and is at risk of erosion. The North Slope Borough is 
analyzing construction alternatives for an evacuation road.

Alaska Native village: Villages taking other actions: Barrow; 
Population: 4,581; Status of efforts: The Corps has begun a 
feasibility study to address beach flooding and erosion problems, 
particularly along the village's utility corridor.

Alaska Native village: Villages taking other actions: Unalakleet; 
Population: 747; Status of efforts: Coastal and river flooding and 
erosion have combined to create a chronic problem at the harbor. The 
Corps has begun a study on improving navigational access.

Alaska Native village: Villages taking other actions: Bethel; 
Population: 5,471; Status of efforts: Spring break-up ice jams on the 
Kuskokwim River cause both periodic flooding and severe erosion along 
the riverbank. A seawall to protect the dock and small boat harbor is 
currently being repaired and extended. 

Source: GAO analysis.

[End of table]

Four Villages in Imminent Danger Are Making 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.

Kivalina:

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.

Figure 8: Aerial view of Kivalina (c. 1999):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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.

Shishmaref:

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.

Figure 9: Bluff Erosion and Permafrost Melting in Shishmaref (c. 2002):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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.

Newtok:

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.[Footnote 18] 
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.[Footnote 19] In anticipation of a move, the 
village is studying the soils and geology of the proposed relocation 
site to determine its suitability.

Koyukuk:

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.[Footnote 20]

Figure 10: Aerial View of Ice Jam and Flooding at Koyukuk, Near the 
Confluence of the Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers (c. 2001):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Five Villages Are Conducting Flooding and Erosion Studies or Improving 
Infrastructure:

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.

Kaktovik:

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.

Point Hope:

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.

Figure 11: Airport Runway at the Native Village of Point Hope (c. 
2001):

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Barrow:

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.

Unalakleet:

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:

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.

Federal Agencies Are Investing in Infrastructure without Knowledge of 
Villages' Relocation Plans:

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.

Alternatives for Addressing Barriers That Villages Face in Obtaining 
Federal Services:

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.

Expand the Role of the Denali Commission:

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.[Footnote 21] 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.

Direct the Corps and NRCS to Include Social and Environmental Factors 
in Their Cost/Benefit Analyses:

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.[Footnote 22] 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.

Waive the Federal Cost-Sharing Requirement for Flooding and Erosion 
Projects:

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.

Authorize Bundling of Funds from Various Agencies to Respond to 
Flooding and Erosion Problems:

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.[Footnote 23] 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.[Footnote 24] 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.

Conclusion:

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

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.

Matter for Congressional Consideration:

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

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 [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov.] 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.

Anu Mittal 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:

Signed by Anu Mittal: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology:

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.[Footnote 25]

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.

[End of section]

Appendix II: ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofit Arms:

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.

Table 6: List of ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofit 
Arms:

For-profit regional corporation: Ahtna, Inc.; Nonprofit organization: 
Copper River Native Association.

For-profit regional corporation: The Aleut Corporation; Nonprofit 
organization: Aleutian Pribilof Island Association.

For-profit regional corporation: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; 
Nonprofit organization: Arctic Slope Native Association.

For-profit regional corporation: Bering Straits Native Corporation; 
Nonprofit organization: Kawerak, Incorporated.

For-profit regional corporation: Bristol Bay Native Corporation; 
Nonprofit organization: Bristol Bay Native Association.

For-profit regional corporation: Calista Corporation; Nonprofit 
organization: Association of Village Council Presidents.

For-profit regional corporation: Chugach Alaska Corporation; Nonprofit 
organization: Chugachmiut.

For-profit regional corporation: Cook Inlet Region, Inc.; Nonprofit 
organization: Cook Inlet Tribal Council.

For-profit regional corporation: Doyon, Limited; Nonprofit 
organization: Fairbanks Native Association.

For-profit regional corporation: Koniag, Inc.; Nonprofit organization: 
Kodiak Area Native Association.

For-profit regional corporation: NANA Regional Corporation, Inc.; 
Nonprofit organization: Maniilaq Association.

For-profit regional corporation: Sealaska Corporation; Nonprofit 
organization: Central Council.

For-profit regional corporation: Thirteenth Regional Corporation; 
Nonprofit organization: No nonprofit organization.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: List of 184 Affected Alaska Native Villages by ANCSA 
Region:

Ahtna: 

Cheesh-Na Tribe (formerly the Native Village of Chistochina).

Native Village of Chitina.

Native Village of Gakona.

Native Village of Tazlina; 

Aleut: 

Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove.

Native Village of Akutan.

Native Village of Atka.

Native Village of Belkofski.

Native Village of False Pass.

Native Village of Nelson Lagoon.

Native Village of Nikolski.

Pauloff Harbor Village[A].

Saint 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 Unga[A]; 

Arctic Slope: 

Native 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.

Village of Wainwright; 

Bering Straits: 

Native Village of Brevig Mission.

Chinik Eskimo Community (Golovin).

Native Village of Diomede (aka Inalik).

King Island Native Community[A].

Native Village of Koyuk.

Nome Eskimo Community.

Native Village of Saint Michael.

Native Village of Shaktoolik.

Native Village of Shishmaref.

Village of Solomon.

Stebbins Community Association.

Native Village of Teller.

Native Village of Unalakleet.

Native Village of Wales.

Native Village of White Mountain.

Native Village of Elim.

Native Village of Gambell.

Native Village of Savoonga; 

Bristol Bay: 

Native Village of Chignik.

Native Village of Chignik Lagoon.

Chignik Lake Village.

Village of Clark's Point.

Curyung Tribal Council (formerly Native Village of Dillingham).

Egegik Village.

Ekwok Village.

Igiugig Village.

Village of Iliamna.

Ivanoff Bay Village.

Kokhanok Village.

Levelock Village.

Manokotak Village.

Naknek Native Village.

New Koliganek Village Council (formerly Koliganek Village).

New Stuyahok Village.

Newhalen Village.

Nondalton Village.

Pedro Bay Village.

Native Village of Perryville.

Native Village of Pilot Point.

Native Village of Port Heiden.

Portage Creek Village (aka Ohgsenakale).

South Naknek Village.

Traditional Village of Togiak.

Twin Hills Village.

Ugashik Village; 

Calista: 

Akiachak Native Community.

Akiak Native Community.

Village of Alakanuk.

Algaaciq Native Village (St. Mary's).

Yupiit of Andreafski.

Village of Aniak.

Asa'carsarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Mountain Village).

Village of Atmautluak.

Village of Chefornak.

Chevak Native Village.

Native Village of Chuathbaluk (Russian Mission, Kuskokwim).

Village of Crooked Creek.

Native Village of Eek.

Emmonak Village.

Native Village of Georgetown.

Native Village of Goodnews Bay.

Native Village of Hooper Bay.

Iqurmuit Traditional Council (formerly Native Village of Russian 
Mission).

Village of Kalskag.

Native Village of Kasigluk.

Native Village of Kipnuk.

Native Village of Kongiganak.

Village of Kotlik.

Organized Village of Kwethluk.

Native Village of Kwigillingok.

Native Village of Kwinhagak (aka Quinhagak).

Lime Village.

Village of Lower Kalskag.

Native Village of Marshall (aka Fortuna Ledge).

Native Village of Mekoryuk.

Native Village of Napaimute.

Native Village of Napakiak.

Native Village of Napaskiak.

Newtok Village.

Native Village of Nightmute.

Nunakauyarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Toksook Bay).

Native Village of Nunapitchuk.

Orutsararmuit Native Village (aka Bethel).

Oscarville Traditional Village.

Pilot Station Traditional Village.

Native Village of Pitka's Point.

Platinum Traditional Village.

Village of Red Devil.

Native Village of Scammon Bay.

Village of Sleetmute.

Village of Stony River.

Tuluksak Native Community.

Native Village of Tuntutuliak.

Native Village of Tununak; 

Chugach: 

Native Village of Chanega (aka Chenega).

Native Village of Eyak (Cordova).

Native Village of Nanwalek (aka English Bay).

Native Village of Tatitlek; 

Cook Inlet Region: 

Ninilchik Village.

Seldovia Village Tribe.

Native Village of Tyonek; 

Doyon: 

Alatna Village.

Allakaket Village.

Anvik Village.

Beaver Village.

Birch Creek Tribe (formerly listed as Birch Creek Village).

Chalkyitsik Village.

Circle Native Community.

Native Village of Eagle.

Evansville Village (aka Bettles Field).

Native Village of Fort Yukon.

Galena Village (aka Louden Village).

Organized Village of Grayling (aka Holikachuk).

Holy Cross Village.

Hughes Village.

Huslia Village.

Village of Kaltag.

Koyukuk Native Village.

Manley Hot Springs Village.

McGrath Native Village.

Native Village of Minto.

Nenana Native Association.

Nikolai Village.

Northway Village.

Nulato Village.

Rampart Village.

Native Village of Ruby.

Shageluk Native Village.

Native Village of Stevens.

Takotna Village.

Native Village of Tanacross.

Native Village of Tanana.

Telida Village.

Native Village of Tetlin; 

Koniag: 

Village of Afognak[A].

Native Village of Akhiok.

Native Village of Karluk.

Native Village of Larsen Bay.

Village of Old Harbor.

Native Village of Ouzinkie.

NANA Native Village of Ambler.

Native Village of Buckland.

Native Village of Deering.

Native Village of Kiana.

Native Village of Kivalina.

Native Village of Kobuk.

Native Village of Kotzebue.

Native Village of Noatak.

Noorvik Native Community.

Native Village of Selawik.

Native Village of Shungnak; 

Sealaska: 

Angoon Community Association.

Chilkat Indian Village (Klukwan).

Craig Community Association.

Hoonah Indian Association.

Hydaburg Cooperative Association.

Organized Village of Kake.

Organized Village of Kasaan.

Klawock Cooperative Association.

Organized Village of Saxman.

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe.

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Army:

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY CIVIL WORKS 
108 ARMY PENTAGON WASHINGTON DC 20310-0108:

Ms. Anu K. Mittal Director:

Natural Resources and Environment 
United States General Accounting Office 441 G Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:

Dear Ms. Mittal:

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, "ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES: Most Are Affected by Flooding and 
Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance," dated November 5, 
2003, (GAO Code 360300/GAO-04-142).

Comments on the draft report are enclosed.

Very truly yours,

John Paul Woodley, Jr. 
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works):

Signed by John Paul Woodley, Jr.: 

Enclosure:

Alaska Native Villages - Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but 
Few Qualify for Federal Assistance.

l. General Comments:

Recommend organizing information in accordance with the following 
outline. The outline below addresses the basic requirements of this 
report. This should help in reducing the redundancy of information that 
is presently in this report and provide the reader a clear 
understanding of the focus and purpose of this study. The suggested 
outline below addresses the specific requirements that Congress 
requested GAO to study regarding Alaskan Native Villages affected by 
flooding and erosion:

Cover Sheet: Executive Summary:

A. Introduction:

B. Historical Background & Current Efforts Addressing Flooding & 
Erosion Related Issues:

1. Barrow 2. Bethel 3. Kaktovik 4. Kivalina 5. Point Hope 6. Unalakleet 
7. Koyukuk 8. Newtok:

9. Shishmaref:

C. Government Programs that may Provide Assistance in Addressing 
Flooding & Erosion Related Problems:

1. Corps of Engineers:

2. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

3. Other Federal Agencies:

4. State Agencies:

D. Alternatives for Congress to Consider in Providing Assistance to 
Alaskan Native Villages for flooding and erosion related issues.

* Expand Role of Denali Commission:

* Direct Corps and NRCS to consider social, cultural and environmental 
factors in cost benefit analysis for projects (Note: Recommend adding 
"cultural"):

* Waive cost sharing requirement for Corps' flooding and erosion 
program:

* Extend cost sharing waiver eligibility to include Alaska projects 
located on land conveyed to an Alaskan Native Village Cooperation & 
increase cost sharing waiver for Civil Works studies and projects.

2. The document does not adequately address FEMA programs to buy out 
substantially damaged properties. If these communities were in the FEMA 
national flood insurance program (NFIP), they could potentially qualify 
for buy-outs to reduce future flood damages. The report should state 
that approximately 93% of all Alaskans (587,000 out of a total 
population of 630,000) are able to participate in the N F I P (Alaska 
Department of Community Economic Development data). It should be noted 
that the communities that the report shows as having the greatest 
flooding problems (Kivilina, Aniak, Unalakleet, and Shishmaref ) are 
all non-participants in the NFIP.

3. The GAO report cites Corps policy on benefits exceeding cost. This 
is not a matter of policy, it is a legal requirement. The 1936 Flood 
Control Act requires benefits to exceed costs for flood control 
projects.

4. The GAO report might also consider:

* Changes in legislation to earmark some of the Federal income for the 
state (oil, timber or other natural resources revenues/royalties/taxes) 
to meet the non-Federal cost share (similar to proposals in coastal 
Louisiana).

* Adequacy of Corps' ability to pay provisions contained in Section 
103(m) of WRDA 1986 - and possible adjustments.

* Funding the Denali Commission with specific provision that the funds 
can be used for non-Federal cost share and/or offset project costs.

5. The bundling of funds from various Federal agencies may help 
particularly in Barrow. The 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. Other Federal participants could be EPA 
to protect the Artie Ocean and village water from sewage pollution, 
FEMA for relocation assistance and HUD for providing minimally 
acceptable housing and also community infrastructure.

Page 4:

6. Line 8-11, Sentence reading "Besides programs administered by the 
Corps of Engineers and Natural Resources Conservation Service, there 
are several other federal and state programs that can assist Alaska 
Native villages in responding to the consequence of flooding and 
erosion." Suggest that this sentence be revised to indicate that theses 
programs are limited in potential response, as very few of them can 
address the broad scale and spectrum of erosion and flooding issues 
that are threatening most Alaska Native villages.

7. The draft report states, "Even villages that meet the Corps' cost/
benefit criteria may still fail to qualify if they cannot meet cost-
share requirements for the project." This is very interesting 
especially since several of the villages had no trouble meeting the 
cost-share requirement for a 
small boat harbor (Bethel - $600,000 being one on the study's list). 
The Alaska District shows on their web page shows forty-nine such 
harbor / navigation aid projects. Additionally, a number of these 
communities (Alaska Department of Community Economic Development web 
site) had little or no trouble in providing the cost-sharing amounts 
for projects funded from other Federal sources (such as BIA, FAA or 
HUD).

8. The report criticizes the Denali Commission and HUD for funding a 
health clinic at Newtok using 2002 & 2003 funds while the city was 
planning to relocate. In the case of Kivalina, which is probably the 
furthest along on relocation, the first indication of relocation 
occurred in the early 1990's - over ten years ago. It is not realistic 
to expect a city to go without a health clinic for ten years.

9. Expanding the Denali Commission's charter to include 
responsibilities for managing flooding and erosion assistance appears 
as though it might exceed the capability of an organization that 
currently has in its charter only energy, health care, training, 
government coordination and other infrastructure. In FY02 almost 60% of 
its work was on energy projects with much of the remaining 40% going 
toward health care facilities. This is a large task in itself for 
approximately 288 towns and cities. It might be worthwhile to consider 
expanding its role in government coordination (i.e. community planning) 
in helping the smaller towns (say under 1,000 residents) in doing 
better planning.

Page 5:

10. Paragraph 1. The Bethel project also includes reinforcing the 
existing pipe-pile seawall and providing rock toe protection.

Page 6:

11. While it may be appropriate to have the Denali Commission comment 
on its ability to perform under an expanded role, it would also be 
appropriate for agencies that are presently tasked in that role to 
comment on the introduction of another agency into the mix.

12. Bullet points two and three may be more effectively addressed 
through the authorization of an Alaska Native Village erosion and 
flooding program.

13. Recommend adding to bullet point three or as a separate bullet the 
following:

Extend cost sharing waiver eligibility to include Alaska projects 
located on lands conveyed to an Alaskan Native Village Cooperation and 
increase current cost sharing waiver provision for Civil Works studies 
and projects. (Note: Cost sharing waiver provisions currently apply 
only to US Territories of Guam, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the 
Marianas Islands & the Virgin Islands. Current waiver is $200,000 for 
the study phase and $200,000 for the construction phase. A legislative 
proposal, originally submitted for Water Resources Development Act 
(WRDA) 2002, is currently under consideration for WRDA 2003. This 
proposal recommends language to include Alaska projects located on land 
conveyed to an Alaskan Native Village Cooperation as:

an eligible entity and to increase cost sharing waiver to $500,000 for 
the study phase and $500,000 for the construction phase.):

14. The recommendations to direct the Corps to consider social and 
environmental factors in BCR analyses, and waive non-Fed cost-sharing, 
are caveated on page 39 and other locations, in that it recognizes 
there could be precedent setting risks and additional burdens on the 
Federal budget. The GAO report does not seem to recognize Ability to 
Pay provisions of law, for which many of these villages would probably 
qualify. The non-Federal share for structural solutions would likely 
be approximately 5%. The non-structural portion of a project is also 
subject to the ability to pay provisions; however, the GAO report does 
not recognize that there are current provisions of law that allow for 
cost-sharing at less than 25-50%.

Page 8:

15. In paragraph 2, the second sentence should read as follows. The 
loss of sea ice leaves coasts more vulnerable to waves, storm surges, 
and erosion.

Page 9:

16. This page and the previous page describe the historical context of 
the Alaska native people and the impacts of the present changing 
environment. These descriptions do not recognize the fact that the 
environment also was changing prior to European immigration to Alaska, 
and that the Alaska native people coped with those changes by being 
mobile. The impacts of the present changes are onerous because the 
mobility of the Alaska native tribes has been compromised by the growth 
in modern infrastructure at sites selected for subsistence activities, 
not modern infrastructure feasibility. The fact that this 
infrastructure has been agglomerated into communities at sites not 
selected or planned for longevity increases the cost of both protection 
and relocation activities by a very large amount.

17. In the list of groupings, recommend adding Siberian Yupik with 
Yup'k. The Siberian Yupik are the people of St. Lawrence Island. One 
other major group in Southeast Alaska is the Tsimshian.

Page 12:

18. In the middle paragraph the second sentence says, "The U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers has responsibility for planning ...... erosion 
protection and flood control structures." The Corps has been given 
authority to provide erosion protection and flood control structures 
under a specific set of requirements. However, the Corps has not been 
endowed with a trust responsibility to any individual or group to 
provide erosion protection and flood control structures (as compared to 
the Indian Health Service). This is important, as project 
authorizations are not based upon equitable distribution of support to 
all needs or at the discretion of the Corps, but rather on 
congressional authorization and appropriations. Accordingly, suggest 
changing the sentence to read as follows: "The Corps may study and/or 
construct erosion protection and flood control structures, provided it 
receives authority and appropriations from Congress to do so.":

19. Also in paragraph 2, non-structural methodologies of the Corps 
erosion control and flood damage reduction should be mentioned. Please 
add the following after the second sentence. Although in many 
instances, measures undertaken by the Corps are structural in nature, 
the Corps may also consider and implement both non-structural and 
relocation alternatives.

Page 13:

20. In paragraph 2, the wording suggests that all coastal and river 
villages are subject to erosion or flooding. Suggest rewording to state 
that many coastal and river villages are subject to erosion or 
flooding.

Page 15:

21. In paragraph 1, after the second sentence, suggest inserting a 
sentence as follows: "Lack of sea ice also increases the distance over 
water, which can generate increased waves and storm surges.":

22. Kivalina, at its present location, has no record of inundation or 
overtopping by storm surge or waves. Wave run-up has occurred to the 
line of seaward houses and sea spray crosses the island, but inundation 
of the village has not been recorded to date. Recent analysis of storm 
surge and wave activity, based upon recent lack of fall ice cover, 
indicates the probability of surge and wave action that could overtop 
the barrier island and demolish the village.

Page 16:

23. In paragraph 2, the report states, "For example, Barrow experiences 
an average temperature increase of 4.16 degrees for the 30-year period 
from 1971 to 2000, while Bethel experienced an increase of 3.08 degrees 
for the same time period." The report should specify whether the 
temperature change is Fahrenheit or Centigrade.

24. The report talks about the flooding as being tied partially to 
climatic changes and references a study done by the Alaska Climate 
Research Center. The report says it's an average temperature increase, 
while the actual web site results are listed as mean annual/seasonal 
temperatures. There is not a link back to the actual data used by the 
Center to determine its chart. Their web site 
does have two reports (at least abstracts) that indicate data different 
from what is reported in the GAO report. A more relevant comparison 
would be Degree Days from previous data (Say Marks or ASHRAE) compared 
to the Degree Day data currently on the NOAA web site for the weather 
station located at the Point Barrow Airfield. If there were in fact a 
warming trend, the number of degree-days today would be substantially 
less than for those reported in Marks or ASHRAE of the early 1970's. 
The National Center for Atmospheric Research data from the Barrow First 
Order Weather Station indicate an increase in total heating degree-days 
of 600 from 1991 to 1999 (their records do not indicate any data for 
degree-days for the years preceding about 1985). This would equate to 
an overall temperature increase on 1.3 degrees F.

25. Table 2. For consistency with Table 3 & 4 and the main focus of 
this report to address flooding and erosion, recommend revising the 
title of Table 2 to read: "Corps Authorities that Address Problems 
Related to Flooding and Erosion". Under the Corps Continuing 
Authorities Program (CAP) the following program authorities would fall 
within this category (Section 107 and Section 204 deleted):

* Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946:

* Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948:

* Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954:

* Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962:

* Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968:

In addition to the Corps CAP, 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, as amended. 
Provides authority for the Corps to assist states, local governments 
and other non-federal entities in the preparation of comprehensive 
plans for the development, utilization, and conservation of water and 
related land resources.

* Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act (PL 86-645), as amended. The 
Flood Plain Management Services' Program provides technical services 
and planning guidance that is needed to support effective flood plain 
management.

* Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 allows the 
Corps to investigate (study only) water resources development projects 
that will benefit tribes and are located primarily within tribal land.

Page 21:

26. The Corps does have authority to make cost sharing adjustments 
based upon a community's ability to pay. (Section 103(m) of WRDA 1986, 
as amended).

Page 24:

27. The listed Alaska State programs are primarily federally funded 
national or state-specific programs (with a small state cost-share) 
administered by the state agency. This distinction is important, as the 
present laws do not allow these programs to provide for the required 
local cost-share of the federal programs administered by the Corps of 
Engineers. There are other programs that are available to Indian 
Reorganization Act (IRA) village governments that can be used to 
provide local cost-share funds, and a few programs that are available 
to village City governments (subdivisions of the state) to provide low 
levels of grant funds that may also be used as a local cost share.

28. In Table 5, under Newtok Village, include the following information 
under "Status of efforts": Under the Corps Planning Assistance to 
States Program the relocation study for Newtok is continuing.

Page 30:

29. In paragraph 2, it should be noted that the Corps is currently 
examining impacts of coastal erosion due to continued climate change 
and other factors in the following communities in Alaska: Bethel, 
Dillingham, Shishmaref, Kakatovik, Kivalina, Unalakleet, and Newtok 
under the Tribal Partnership Program, Section 203 of WRDA 2000. 
Congress provided $2 million for FY 2003.

Page 33:

30. First sentence after Point Hope. This has been written about the 
oldest continually inhabited area in North America on several web 
sites, but the original document it came from referred to the longest 
continually inhabited area in Northwest Alaska. It isn't the longest 
continually inhabited area in Alaska (e.g. Nikolski - 4,000 yrs.). 
Please change North America to Northwest Alaska.

Page 35:

31. The 5THline from the bottom of the page: "emergency, the village 
placed rock along 600 linear feet of the riverbank and dock." Bethel is 
too large for a village. It is a regional hub and is the size of a town 
rather than a village. The state of Alaska officially lists Bethel as a 
Second Class City.

Page 39:

32. Section: Direct the Corps and NRCS to Include Social and 
Environmental Factors in its Cost/Benefit Analysis. One thing to note 
is that Point Hope is also a nationally significant cultural site or a 
National Historic Landmark. Barrow has a National Historic Landmark, 
properties on the National Register of Historic Places, and numerous 
well-known sites eligible for the National Register. There are also 
cultural resources at Kivalina, Shishmaref, Unalakleet, and Kaktovik. 
Additional research would need to be done to determine if there are 
sites at Bethel, and Koyukuk that would be threatened. Newtok is a 
relatively recent occupation, so the significance of its cultural 
resources is not clear. The report might want to consider including 
cultural heritage sites in the cost/benefit analysis for flooding and 
erosion projects for Alaska Native villages as a consideration for 
Congress to evaluate.

Page 40:

33. Cost-benefit waiver legislation. The report refers to provisions of 
HR 2557 (not enacted). This bill, if enacted, would authorize harbor 
projects in certain remote areas without justification based on NED 
benefits. It is not clear why this provision is identified, since it is 
for navigation harbors, and not flooding/erosion. If the report is 
trying to make the point that this type of:

legislation could be developed for flooding/erosion too, then the 
report should make that point more clear.

Page 41:

34. In paragraph 2, the document mentions H.R. 2557 that will waive 
various cost sharing provisions. This addresses a major issue, but may 
not capture the needs of the whole region for determining project 
justification and cost sharing. In several instances, Congress has 
developed regional or site specific programs to address certain issues 
that vary from the specific guidance of the traditional Corps programs, 
often times looking at the needs of rural communities. There may exist 
the need to develop a specific program for addressing the Tribal 
community erosion and flood control issues, through which relocation, 
cost sharing, and justification issues can be addressed. Other ideas 
include granting authorization for other Federal funds to be eligible 
to match funds from other Federal cost sharing programs.

Appendix III:

35. Please correct the following village names (correction in bold):

Ahtna:

Cheesh'Na Tribe (formerly the Chistochina Village Council) <-not 
formerly Native Village of Chistochina>:

Change from Native Village of Chitina to Chitina Traditional Village 
Change from Native Village of Gakona to Gakona Village Council:

Aleut:

Pauloff Harbor Village Council:

St. George Island Traditional Council Aleut Community of St. Paul 
Island Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point (remove Village) Change 
Native Village of Unga to Unga Tribal Council:

Arctic Slope:

Change Kaktovik Village to Native Village of Kaktovik:

Bering Straits:

Native Village of Solomon Teller Traditional Council:

Bristol Bay:

Clark's Point Village Council; 
Curyung Native Village Council; 
Egetik Village Council; 
Ekwok Village Council; 
Igiugig Village Council; 
Ivanoff Bay Village Council; 
Kokhanok Village Council; 
Levelock Village Council; 
Manokotak Village Council; 
New Koliganek Village Council (formerly Koliganke Village Council); 
New Stuyahok Village Council; 
Newhalen Tribal Council; 
Nondalton Tribal Council; 
Pedro Bay Village Council; 
Pilot Point Village Council; 
Port Heiden Village Council; 
Portage Creek Village Council (aka Ohgsenakale Tribe); 
South Naknek Village Council; 
Togiak Traditional Council; 
Twin Hills Village Council; 
Ugashik Traditional Village Council; 

GAO's Comments:

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).

[End of section]

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior:

United States Department of the Interior:

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
Washington, D.C. 20240:

NOV 25 2003:

Anu Mittal:

Director, Natural Resources and Environment U.S. General Accounting 
Office:

441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Mittal:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on GAO's Draft 
Report entitled, "Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding 
and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance" (GAO-04-142).

Although the draft report does not contain any formal recommendations 
to the Department of the Interior, (Department) the Department may be 
able to assist the Denali Commission or other federal agencies tasked 
by the Congress to develop and implement solutions and alternatives 
that will be identified in the future.

Several of the Department's bureaus have had an opportunity to review 
the draft report, including representatives of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land 
Management. It is their consensus that they would welcome the 
opportunity to assist in identifying solutions. The solution to the 
problem presented in the report will take a comprehensive and 
coordinated effort by all affected parties.

In closing, I want to again thank you for the opportunity to review the 
report. The cadre of issues and impacts documented in the draft report 
is overwhelming.

Sincerely,

P. Lynn Scarlett: 
Assistant Secretary Policy Management and Budget:

Signed by P. Lynn Scarlett: 

ENCLOSURE:

Department of the Interior Comments on GAO Draft Report entitled, 
"Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but 
Few Qualify for Federal Assistance" (GAO-04-142):

General Comments:

Our records (and the State's online Corporation's Database) indicate 
that some of the Regional Corporations have slightly different names 
from those listed. We believe the corporate names should be corrected 
as shown below, to be consistent.

The Aleut Corporation Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Koniag, Inc.

NANA Regional Corporation, Inc.

Specific Comments:

Page 2, first sentence - misplaced comma between the words "local" and 
"agencies.":

Page 26, Table 5, The status of the Newtok exchange needs to be 
updated.

Page 31, First sentence, starting with "Legislation that would covey... 
"needs to be corrected and updated. Perhaps something like, 
"Legislation that would authorize 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, has passed the House and Senate (the 
President's signature is expected within two weeks or the bill has 
recently been enacted)." The point is that the status of the 
legislation needs to be as current as possible, and Newtok is giving up 
two parcels-selections on Baird Inlet Island as well as conveyed lands 
and selections at the Aknerkochik location.

[End of section]

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
WASHINGTON, DC 20410-5000:

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING:

NOV 25 2003:

MEMORANDUM FOR: Anu K. Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and 
Environment, General Accounting Office:

FROM: Michael Liu, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 
Housing, P:

Signed by Michael Liu: 

SUBJECT: Comments on GAO Draft Report, "Alaska Native Villages: Most are 
Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal 
Assistance":

The Department would like to thank GAO for its review of Alaska Native 
villages affected by flooding and erosion.

The Draft Report presents a sketch of the seriousness of the issue and 
the feasibility of alternatives for responding to the flooding and 
erosion problem. The review found that flooding and erosion affect 86 
percent of Alaska Native villages. The Department shares the concern of 
GAO regarding the insufficient coordination of federal agencies that 
have involvement with this issue. However, the Department is not 
prepared to endorse GAO's suggestion that the Denali Commission manage 
federal funds for flooding and erosion problems. We have concerns 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. Careful consideration should be given to the 
financial and managerial capacity of any federal entity that may be 
considered to coordinate federal funds for flood and erosion control 
affecting Alaska Native villages.

The Department regards this study as an important resource in the 
continuing effort to meet the challenge of maintaining a safe and 
decent environment for Alaska Natives living along the coastline and 
rivers.

cc: Jeff Malcolm, Assistant Director, Natural Resources and 
Environment, GAO:

[End of section]

Appendix VII: Comments from the Denali Commission:

DENALI COMMISSION 510 "L" Street, Suite 410 
Anchorage AK 99501:

(907) 271-1414 Fax (907) 271-1415 Toll Free (888) 480-4321 
www.denali.gov:

November 10, 2003:

Anu K. Mittal, Director:

Natural Resources and Environment United States General Accounting 
Office 441 G Street, Rm. 2T23A:

Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Ms. Mittal:

We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report 
concerning flooding and erosion of Alaska Native Villages. In general, 
we believe the report does a good job of framing the issue and 
capturing the relevant information concerning this very serious 
problem. The magnitude of this problem, depending on the alternative(s) 
selected to address it, is measured in terms of hundreds of millions 
and possible billions of dollars.

Alternatives for addressing the problem range from moving imminently 
threatened villages to a new location to simply allowing individual 
villagers to relocate to other existing communities. There are 
significant costs associated with either approach, and with either 
approach there are likely to be interim investment decisions that have 
to be made.

We recognize the error that was made in the decision to fund a new 
clinic in Newtok. As pointed out in the report, the Commission's draft 
Investment Policy should help avoid similar flawed decision making in 
the future. We are confident that the principles upon which the Policy 
is based are sound, but its efficacy depends on available and accurate 
information. Community based, regionally supported comprehensive 
planning is critical to the sustainability of any public works project 
in rural Alaska. We will continue to seek the State of Alaska and other 
agencies' collaboration in making such planning effective.

Additionally it is not sufficient for the Denali Commission alone to 
have an Investment Policy. To ensure that investments are made in a 
conscientious and sustainable manner, we believe that all funding 
agencies should use a similar policy to guide investments. Otherwise 
communities will shop for the funding agency with the most permissive 
rules for funding.

As one alternative, the report recommends an expanded role for the 
Denali Commission to include responsibilities for manage a flooding and 
erosion assistance program. We are not convinced that a new program is 
the appropriate response.

For the four villages identified as being in imminent danger from 
flooding or erosion, prevention or minimization of flooding is very 
likely neither technically nor financially viable. If that is the case, 
then either a wholesale relocation of the village or allowing the 
community members to relocate among other more sustainable communities 
appears to be the only potentially viable solutions. Each community 
must make their own case by case decisions.

Wholesale relocation may not be financially viable, which would leave 
only the option of allowing community members the choice of going 
without publicly funded infrastructure or moving to where such 
infrastructure is sustainable, In some cases, the community High School 
is the most critical public infrastructure weighing heavily in such 
individual family decision making.

Relocation of an entire community requires some organization to plan 
and direct the myriad of actions involved. That organization need not 
necessarily be a federal agency.

With the foregoing in mind, the Commission offers the following 
recommendations:

1. We believe that adequate information currently exists to determine 
whether preventing or minimizing flooding and erosion is technically 
and/or financially feasible. I recommend that the federal 
responsibility for such feasibility analysis is appropriately charged 
to the leadership of the Corps of Engineers.

2. If mitigation measures are not feasible, relocation must be a 
collaborative process. I believe tribal, local, state, federal and non-
profit organizations must be consulted, and criteria established for 
each element of cost associated with any relocation program. Once 
established, such cost criteria must be weighed in the context of the 
only two options available - relocation of the entire community or 
relocation of individual families to other existing communities. 
Members of a threatened community should be provided adequate 
information in order to make informed choices.

3. Roles, responsibilities and functions must be clearly articulated 
under one comprehensive planning process. No agency should be allowed 
to act without concurrence and coordination with all agencies affected 
by such actions.

4. I concur with recommendations to review national criteria with an eye 
towards providing greater flexibility for the Alaska District of the 
Corps of Engineers to address Alaska's unique rural community flooding 
and erosion challenges.

5. There should be a much larger role outlined for borough and State 
governments. While it is true that neither borough nor State 
governments is likely to be significant contributors of funding to 
address this issue, they can and should play a very central:

role in developing response strategies, in helping to prioritize the 
use of scarce resources, and in planning and helping to execute 
appropriate responses. If the appropriate response is the dispersion of 
the population to existing communities, borough and State government 
should play the lead role with little or no involvement from the 
federal government.

6. The report should strongly encourage all federal and state agencies 
to adopt an investment policy similar to that being developed by the 
Denali Commission, particularly for the expenditure of federal funds. 
Regardless of which approach to this problem is pursued, such a policy 
will help to ensure consistency and prudent use of limited available 
resources.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment and will be happy to 
respond to any questions our comments may generate.

Sincerely,

Jeff Staser
Federal Co-chair: 

Signed by Jeff Staser: 

GAO's Comments:

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.

[End of section]

Appendix VIII: Comments from the State of Alaska:

FRANK H. MURKOWSKI 
GOVERNOR:

GOVERNOR@GOV.STATE.AK. US:

STATE OF ALASKA 
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 
JUNEAU:

P.O. Box 1 10001 
JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0001 
(907) 465-3500 
FAX (907) 465-3532 
WWW.GOV.STATE.AK.US:

November 21, 2003:

Ms. Anu K. Mittal, Director:

Natural Resources and Environment United States General Accounting 
Office 441 G Street, Room 2T23A Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Mittal:

This is in response to your draft report to Senator Ted Stevens 
regarding Alaska native villages affected by flooding and erosion. The 
State of Alaska recognizes that many communities in the state are 
threatened by erosion from ocean tidal activity and river, flooding. 
Some communities are in imminent danger and require federal assistance. 
We are encouraged that the GAO has recognized the dilemma these 
.communities face and is committed to identifying alternatives that 
Congress may consider in providing assistance.

Enclosed for your review are responses from the Denali Commission, 
Department of Community and Economic Development, and the Division of 
Emergency Services. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort invested 
in preparing this report as well as the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Michael A. Nizich 
Deputy Chief of Staff:

Signed by Michael A. Nizich: 

Enclosures:

State of Alaska: 
DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS 
DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT:

P.O. Box 5750 
Ft. Richardson, AK 99505-5750 
Phone: (800) 478-2337 
Fax: (907) 428-7009 
www.ak-prepared. com:

Nov 20, 2003:

Mr. Jeff Malcolm, Assistant Director 
Natural Resources and Environment 
US General Accounting Office:

Mr. Malcolm,

I represent the State of Alaska, Division of Emergency Services (DES), 
and I have reviewed your Draft Report to Congressional Committees 
entitled ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES, Most Are Affected by Flooding and 
Erosion, Gut Few Qualify far Federal Assistance. I submit the following 
comments for consideration.

-DES has some concern about how the nine"at risk" communities in the 
study were determined and why there were only nine. Some of the nine 
communities studied may not be in the top nine communities at risk from 
flooding and erosion and others at greater risk from flooding and 
erosion may not be included.

-Page 12. The statement in the second paragraph that identifies the 
Division of Emergency Services as the first to respond to state 
disaster declarations dealing with flooding and erosion is not 
accurate. Local communities are the first to respond to disasters. The 
state, through DES, responds only when local communities are unable to 
handle the situation themselves and request our assistance.

-Page 24. The fifth bullet of the second paragraph identifies DES as 
"the state agency that responds first . . ." It would be more accurate 
to say that DES"is the state agency that, when assistance is 
requested, coordinates the response to emergencies . . ." Also, the 
last sentence of the fifth bullet needs further defined and should more 
accurately read as follows."With authorization from the Governor, the 
state Disaster Relief Fund can make up to $I million (without 
Legislative approval) available to communities recovering from a state 
declared disaster. Substantially more funding may be available, with 
Legislative approval, for Presidential Disaster Declarations, for which 
the state is obligated to pay a 25% funding match.":

-Page 38. The last paragraph needs to better define the recommendation 
to expand the Denali Commission's role in providing flood and erosion 
assistance and its relationship to FEMA and state disaster response and 
recovery. The Denali Commission does not currently have a role in 
disaster response or recovery.

-Page 39. The second paragraph, sixth sentence states that the Alaska 
Federation of Natives represents Native corporations statewide. This is 
not an accurate statement, as they do not represent all Alaska Native 
corporations. To our knowledge, there is no single entity that 
represents all Alaska Native corporations.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this GAO study. 
If you have any questions, please contact me at 907-428-7030.

Sincerely,

James F. Butchart: 
Deputy Director 
Office of Emergency Management:

Signed by James F. Butchart: 

Department of Community and Economic Development:

Division of Community Advocacy 
550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1770, 
Anchorage, AK 99501-3510 
Telephone: (907) 269-4580 
* Fax: (907) 269-4563 
* Text Telephone: (907) 465-5437 
Email: questions@dced.state.ak.us 
* Website: www.dced.state.ak.us/cbd/:

November 20, 2003:

Anu K. Mittal, Director:

Natural Resources and Environment 
U.S. General Accounting Office 
441 G Street, Room. 2T23A 
Washington, D.C.

Dear Ms. Mittal:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report regarding 
Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion. As the State-
coordinating department for floodplain management in Alaska - an agency 
that provides technical assistance without dedicated funds to mitigate 
these significant threats facing families and communities throughout 
Alaska - we are delighted to have had the congressionally mandated 
report prepared.

In general the report is well prepared given the short time frame and 
difficult mandate. We greatly appreciate the trips made to several of 
the villages by the study team in order to see first hand the problems 
faced by these communities.

The GAO recommendations may not go far enough to stress all 
alternatives are considered in current federal agency relocation 
planning efforts. Relocation options must also include sustainable 
community planning objectives, and what a `no action' impact would be 
(e.g. would residents move to other communities if no new relocation 
site was developed?). Community relocation planning efforts need to be 
integrated into other community planning activities such as utility and 
airport master plans, economic development, or other comprehensive 
planning activities - many of which are funded by a mix of federal and 
state program dollars."Sustainability" with regard to flooding and 
erosion meaning that a locale is able to withstand a severe natural 
event or a number of less severe events without incurring permanent 
degradation of property, diminished productivity, or reduced quality of 
life, and can afford locally to manage the level of damage that may 
occur.

The following comments are directed to specific areas in the report:

The 3rd paragraph, line three states: "Relocation is a daunting 
process that may take several years to accomplish for these villages." 
The daunting process is correct. From 
our experience, unless a funded, interdisciplinary, systematic approach 
to relocation is undertaken to assist these most threatened 
communities, structures will continue to be temporarily moved back to 
avoid loss but relocation has not, and will not, occur in `several 
years.' Relocation has been a topic of discussion and study for 
Kivalina, Shishmaref and Newtok for at least two decades. We would like 
to see the federal disaster assistance programs included in the many 
assistance mechanisms that will be needed to address the relocation 
needs of these most threatened Alaska villages. In particular, the 
Flood Mitigation Assistance Program which GAO credits (page 29) as 
funding the move of 14 homes in Shishmaref after the 1997 storm, is now 
limited by the Federal Emergency Management Agency guidance only to 
"repetitive loss structures" as eligible rather than including 
"structures subject to imminent collapse or subsidence as a result of 
erosion or flooding" as is allowable under the Congressional 
authorizing language. [NOTE 1] This unfairly limits a viable federal 
funding mechanism that has successfully mitigated the loss of many 
structures in Shishmaref but currently can not be used.

Page 3-4, repeating on pages 20-21, the report discusses the difficulty 
of villages to provide cost-share funds, which is a very real problem. 
What is not mentioned is that historically the State has provided the 
nonfederal matching funds for most Corps of Engineers (and other 
federal projects) and with the extreme budget deficits currently faced 
by the State of Alaska the matching funds have been severely limited.

Page 4, line 6, repeating on page 24 2nd bullet states:"...the Alaska 
Department of Community and Economic Development provides coordination, 
(funding) and technical assistance to communities to help reduce losses 
and damage from flooding and erosion." Please delete"funding", as 
DCED assistance is limited. There is no dedicated State fund for 
relocation, erosion or structural flood control. A number of special 
legislative pass-through grants and Community Development Block Grants 
have been used to fund erosion studies and relocation planning projects 
but no direct general fund exists at the State level.

Page 1, repeating on page 3, and 13: By listing 184 out of 213 or 86% 
of Alaska Native villages"affected" by erosion because quantifiable 
data are not available for remote locations, though true misses 
concerns expressed by this Division about the complexity of the erosion 
policy arena - and lack of quantifying terms - with regard to erosion. 
Probably all 213 villages are"affected" because erosion is a naturally 
occurring process. Data collection needs some framework for 
quantification. Standard(s) for measurement; erosion zone guidance and 
federal (or state) standards by which to judge erosion risk are needed. 
The national standard for designing, development and siting for the 
"100-year flood" event exists and is quantifiable and measurable. A 
standard for erosion, such as a distance measurement needs to be 
established (such as the life of the structure, which itself may need 
to be standardized - 50-year life for a house, etc.). Congress has 
provided 
limited authorization to implement a coastal erosion management program 
[NOTE 2] but this has not advanced to the level of Executive Orders 
for guiding federal floodplain and wetlands management.

"Imminent threat" was another term used in the report but the 
definition and varies among agencies (HUD did not consider Unalakleet 
erosion problems an"Imminent threat", whereas NRCS did.):

Page 4, 3RD line, page 26 Table 5, and page 28: describes Corps cost 
estimates for Kivalina. Suggest verifying with the Corps or footnoting 
as to the source document, particularly the cite"...up to $400 million 
for just the cost of building a gravel pad...":

Page 10, line 2: Please rewrite to add wording (all CAPS) to this 
affect:"Since most OF THE villages AFFECTED BY SEVERE FLOODING AND 
EROSION THAT ARE PLANNING FOR RELOCATION do not have running water, the 
washeteria plays an important role;...":

Page 10, line 3: Consider qualifying statement:"Because many village 
homes IN THE VILLAGES MOST IMPACTED BY EROSION AND FLOODING do not have 
sanitation facilities they rely on honey buckets - a five-gallon bucket 
that serves as a toilet-or a flush and haul system." Federal agencies 
and the State of Alaska have invested heavily in improving rural 
sanitation but in many villages the sanitation system does not allow 
for sufficient volume or flow of water to allow for in-home bathing and 
laundry.

Page 11, line 1: Suggest changing "Most" to MANY delete DOCK OR as 
follows:"Most river villages also have a barge landing area where 
goods are delivered to the community during the ice free period." 
Because of ice conditions very few villages have docks.

Page 13 repeats from cover and page 3.

Page 16, line 3: the referenced 1982 report. If this is the"Listing of 
Alaskan Communities for Documentation of Erosion Problems" prepared for 
DCED (then Department of Community and Regional Affairs), please credit 
this Department. The companion report to this listing was 
"Understanding and Evaluating Erosion Problems" 9/1982, for DCED.

Page 24, 4th bullet please verify with Alaska Housing Finance 
Corporation to see if they have"grants to persons in imminent danger 
of losing their homes".

Page 24, last line please clarify sentence to read:"According to state 
documents BETWEEN 1972 and 1991 the state spent over $40 million for 
EROSION CONTROL STATEWIDE.":

Page 29 Add:"After the 1997 fall storm, which was declared a state 
disaster, FEMA FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS (75 % 
SHARE) ADMINISTERED AND MATCHED BY THE STATE (25% share), helped move 
14 homes along the COASTAL BLUFF to another part of the village, and in 
2002...":

GAO staff during their research prepared a list of studies by village. 
Suggest the village specific bibliography be included in an Appendix to 
the Final Report for future reference. This kind of community specific 
research is time consuming to collect and would be a useful addition to 
this study.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft report. If you 
have questions about any of the Division's comments, please contact 
Christy Miller, floodplain management program coordinator on my staff 
at (907) 269-4567.

Sincerely,

Gene Kane 
Director:

Signed by Gene Kane: 

cc: Al Clough, DCED Deputy Commissioner, Juneau:

NOTES: 

[1] See Section 1366(e) (5) Eligible Activities (A) of The National 
Flood Insurance Act of 196 as Amended by the national Flood Insurance 
Reform Act of 1994.

[2] Managing Coastal Erosion, National Research Council (Library of 
Congress CC # 89-13845):


GAO's Comments:

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.[Footnote 26] 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.

[End of section]

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Anu Mittal, (202) 512-3841 Jeffery D. Malcolm, (202) 512-6536:

Acknowledgments:

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.

:

(360300):

:

FOOTNOTES

[1] Pub. L. No. 105-277, tit. III, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

[2] H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-731, at 15 (2002).

[3] The size is determined by the average rate of flow (discharge at 
the mouth).

[4] The U.S. Census Bureau defines this category as American Indian and 
Alaska Native.

[5] Other Alaska Native groups include Siberian Yupik of St. Lawrence 
Island and Tsimshian of southeast Alaska. 

[6] A flush and haul system generally consists of individual storage 
tanks that provide water to flush toilets, and the sewage is then 
stored in a separate tank whose contents are transported to a sewage 
lagoon.

[7] Pub. L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971). In addition, a thirteenth 
corporation was established later for nonresident Alaska Natives.

[8] A thirteenth regional corporation was later established for 
nonresident Alaska Natives. This corporation participated only in 
ANCSA's cash settlement and did not receive any ANCSA lands or other 
ANCSA benefits. 

[9] The Corps may study and construct erosion protection and flood 
control structures, provided it receives authority and appropriations 
from Congress to do so. In addition to building structures, the Corps 
may also consider and implement non-structural and relocation 
alternatives.

[10] This report was prepared for the Alaska Department of Community 
and Regional Affairs, the predecessor of the Alaska Department of 
Community and Economic Development.

[11] Floodplain refers to the lowlands adjoining the channel of a 
river, stream, or watercourse, or ocean, lake, or other body of 
standing water, which have been or may be inundated by floodwater. The 
channel of a stream or watercourse is part of the floodplain.

[12] The Corps' guidelines are based on the Flood Control Act of 1936, 
which provides 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. 

[13] The Corps has the authority to make cost sharing adjustments based 
upon a community's ability to pay under section 103 (m) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §2213 (m).

[14] According to state of Alaska officials, historically the state has 
provided the nonfederal matching funds for most Corps of Engineers (and 
other federal projects), and with the extreme budget deficits currently 
faced by the state of Alaska, the matching funds have been severely 
limited. 

[15] The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program was 
authorized under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 
Pub. L. No. 83-566 (1954).

[16] The Emergency Watershed Protection Program was authorized under 
the Flood Control Act of 1950, Pub. L. No. 81-516 (1950).

[17] The Conservation Technical Assistance Program was authorized under 
the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, Pub. L. No. 
74-46 (1935).

[18] 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. 

[19] Pub. L. No. 108-129, 117 Stat. 1358 (2003). 

[20] According to FAA officials, the planned relocation of the village 
will not include the construction of another airport. 

[21] Denali Transportation System Act, S. 295, 108TH Cong. (2003).

[22] H.R. 2557, §2011, 108TH Cong. (2003).

[23] Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act 
of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-477, 106 Stat. 2302 (1992).

[24] The bills introduced in the 106TH, 107TH, and 108TH Congresses 
were S. 2052, S. 343, and S. 1528, respectively.

[25] A total of 220 Native villages were deemed eligible under ANCSA. 
However, seven of those villages do not have corresponding Alaska 
Native entities recognized by the Department of the Interior's Bureau 
of Indian Affairs. For a list of Indian entities recognized by the 
federal government, see 67 Fed. Reg. 46328 (July 12, 2002). 

[26] H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-731, at 15 (2002).

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the 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.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

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.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 

 Voice: (202) 512-6000:

 TDD: (202) 512-2537:

 Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: