    Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and
    Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance (12-DEC-03,
    GAO-04-142).

    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.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-142
        ACCNO:   A08981
      TITLE:     Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and
    Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance
         DATE:   12/12/2003
      SUBJECT:   Conservation
    	     Federal funds
    	     Federal/state relations
    	     Flood control
    	     Rural economic development
    	     Land management
    	     Wetlands
    	     Alaska

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-04-142

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO

                           Report to Congressional Committees

    December 2003

    ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES

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

                                           a

    GAO-04-142

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

    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.

    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.

    December 2003

    ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES

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

    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:

    o  Expand the role of the Denali Commission.

    o  	Direct federal agencies to consider social and environmental factors
    in their cost/benefit analyses.

    o  Waive the federal cost-sharing requirement for these projects.

    o  Authorize the "bundling" of funds from various federal agencies.

    Bluff Erosion at Shishmaref

    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

    1 2 6

    13

    19

    27

    41 45 46 46 46

    Appendixes

    Appendix I:

    Appendix II:

    Appendix III:

    Appendix IV:

    Appendix V: Appendix VI:

    Appendix VII:

    Appendix VIII:

    Appendix IX:

    Objectives, Scope and Methodology 49

    ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and Nonprofit
    Arms 51

    List of 184 Affected Alaska Native Villages by ANCSA
    Region 52

    Comments from the Department of the Army 58
    GAO's Comments 68

    Comments from the Department of the Interior 69

    Comments from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
    Development 71

    Comments from the Denali Commission 72
    GAO's Comments 74

    Comments from the State of Alaska 75
    GAO's Comments 81

    GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 82
    GAO Contacts 82
    Acknowledgments 82

                                        Contents

    Tables  Table 1: Number of ANCSA-Eligible Villages Affected by Flooding
                                   and Erosion, by Region                      15
              Table 2: Authorities that Address Flooding and Erosion under the
                           Corps' Continuing Authorities Program               19
                   Table 3: NRCS Programs That Respond to Flooding and Erosion 20
                 Table 4: Other Key Federal Programs That Can Address Problems
                               Caused by Flooding and Erosion                  21
                      Table 5: Nine Alaska Native Villages' Efforts to Address
                                                                      Flooding
                                        and Erosion                            29
                Table 6: List of ANCSA For-Profit Regional Corporations and
                                       Nonprofit Arms                          51

    Figures Figure 1:

    Figure 2: Figure 3:

    Figure 4:

    Figure 5: Figure 6:

    Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9:

    Map of Alaska Showing Major Rivers, Oceans, and
    Mountain Ranges
    Sea Erosion at Shishmaref (June 2003)
    Subsistence Harvesting of a Seal in Kivalina (June
    2003)
    Locations of 184 Native Villages Affected by Flooding and
    Erosion
    Aerial View of Flooding in Aniak (c. 2002)
    NRCS Seawall Erosion Protection Project at Unalakleet
    (c. 2000)
    Map of Alaska with Nine Villages Highlighted
    Aerial view of Kivalina (c. 1999)
    Bluff Erosion and Permafrost Melting in Shishmaref
    (c. 2002)

                                          7 8

                                           10

                                         14 16

    25 28 31

    33

    36 38

    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)

    Contents

    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

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

                                        Contents

    A

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548

    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.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.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

    1Pub. L. No. 105-277, tit. III, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998). 2H. R. Conf. Rep.
    No. 107-731, at 15 (2002).

    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.

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

    o 	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.

    o 	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.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.

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

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

    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)

    Source: GAO.

    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.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), Inupiat (Northern
    Eskimos), Yup'ik (Bering Sea Eskimos), Athabascan (Interior Indians), and
    Tlingit and Haida (Southeast Coastal Indians).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.

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

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

    3: Subsistence HarFi vestingg of a Sealu in Kivalina (Jre une 2003)

    Source: GAO.

    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.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

    6A 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.

    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.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.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.)

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

    8A 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.

    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.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.

    9The 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.

    Most Alaska Native According to federal and Alaska state officials that we
    consulted, most of

    the 213 Alaska Native villages are subject to flooding and erosion.
    However,Villages Are Affected to it is difficult to assess the severity of
    the problem because quantifiable data Some Extent by on flooding and
    erosion are not available for remote locations. Villages Flooding and
    Erosion 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 Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or
    86.4 percent, of Alaska and Erosion Affects 86 Native villages to some
    extent, according to studies and information Percent of Alaska Native
    provided to us by federal and Alaska state officials. The 184 affected

    villages consist of coastal and river villages throughout the state.
    Figure 4

    Villages	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

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

                                                           Alaska Native villages
                                        Alaska Native        affected by flooding
                            Region           villages                 and erosion
                             Ahtna                  8
                             Aleut                 13
                      Arctic Slope                  8
                    Bering Straits                 20
                       Bristol Bay                 29
                           Calista                 56
                           Chugach                  5
                 Cook Inlet Region                  7
                             Doyon                 37
                            Koniag                 9a
                              NANA                 11
                          Sealaska                 10
                             Total                213                         184

    Source: GAO.

    aThere 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.

    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
    lowlying 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)

    Source: Alaska Division of Emergency Services.

    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.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

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

    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 10feet 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 While most Alaska Native villages are affected
    to some extent by flooding Available to Fully Assess the and erosion,
    quantifiable data are not available to fully assess the severity Severity
    of the Problem 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.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 100year 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
    "100year flood" event exists and are quantifiable and measurable, a
    similar standard for erosion, such as a distance measurement needs to be
    established.

    11Floodplain 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.

    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 The Continuing Authorities Program, administered by
    the Corps, and the Available to Respond to Watershed Protection and Flood
    Prevention Program, administered by Problems Associated with NRCS, are the
    principal programs available to prevent flooding and control

    erosion. Table 2 below lists and describes the five authorities under the

    Flooding and Erosion	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 Description

    Section 14 of the Flood Control For emergency streambank and shoreline Act
    of 1946 erosion protection for public facilities

    Section 205 of the Flood Control Authorizes flood control projects Act of
    1948

    Section 208 of the Flood Control Authorizes flood control activities Act
    of 1954

    Section 103 of the River and Harbor Protect shores of publicly owned
    property Act of 1962 from hurricane and storm damage

    Section 111 of the River and Harbor Mitigate shoreline erosion damage
    cause by Act of 1968 federal navigation projects

    Source: GAO analysis of Corps program information.

    In addition to the Corps' Continuing Authorities Program, other Corps
    authorities that may address problems related to flooding and erosion
    include the following:

    o 	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.

    o 	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 Description

    Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Provides funding for projects
    that control

    Program	erosion and prevent flooding. Limited to watersheds that are less
    than 250,000 acres.

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

    Conservation Technical Assistance Provides technical assistance to

    Program	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.

    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 Description

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

    Federal Emergency Management Agency/Public Assistance Provides
    supplemental federal disaster grant assistance for the

    Program	repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly
    owned facilities and the facilities of certain nonprofit organizations.

    Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration Provides
    funding through the state of Alaska for roads, pedestrian

    (FHWA)	facilities, and snowmobile trails. FHWA monies may be available to
    assist villages with improving or repairing roads/boardwalks.

    Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration Provides
    funding to improve airport infrastructure-including those

    (FAA)/Alaska Region Airports Division	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.

    Housing and Urban Development/Community Development Block Provides grants
    to Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages to

    Grants Program	develop economic opportunities and build decent housing for
    low and moderate-income residents.

    Housing and Urban Development/Native American Housing Provides grants and
    technical assistance to Indian tribes and

    Assistance Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA)	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.

    Housing and Urban Development/Imminent Threats Grants Program

    Provides funding to alleviate or remove imminent threats to health or
    safety-including threats posed by flooding and erosion.

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

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

    Department of Commerce's Economic Development Provides assistance to
    protect and develop the economies of

    Administration/Economic Adjustment Program	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.

    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.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.

    12The 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. S:701a.

    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.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.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.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.

    13The 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. S:2213 (m).

    14According 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.

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

    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.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 costshare 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 onetime
    events-such as repairing damage caused by a large storm-rather than
    addressing recurring flooding and erosion.

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

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

    Source: NRCS.

    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.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

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

    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:

    o 	The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, which
    funds work through its maintenance appropriations to protect village
    airstrips from erosion.

    o 	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.

    o 	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.

    o 	The Alaska Housing Financing Corporation, which has a program to
    provide loans or grants to persons in imminent danger of losing their
    homes.

    o 	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

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

    Alaska Native village Population Status of efforts Villages planning to
    relocate

    Newtok 321	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.
                               relocate
                  Located on      range
                   a barrier       from                                             constructing
                 island that       $100    Corps on                                 a temporary
                     is both    million     further                                   seawall
                 overcrowded    to over      site                                      while
    Kivalina 377         and       $400   selections  Shishmaref 562 Located on a   concurrently
                  shrinking.   million.       for                      barrier      working on a
                        Cost        The   evaluation.                 island and     relocation
                   estimates    village                              experiencing       site
                          to         is                                chronic                     selection
                                working                                erosion.                      with
                               with the                               Working on                     NRCS.

                             Villages taking other actions

         Koyukuk 101	Experiences severe flooding from Yukon and Koyukuk Rivers.
         Community is in the process of assessing prospective relocation sites.
                                                                                                                                        Coastal
                                                                                                                                            and
                  Airport                                                                                                                 river                             Spring        severe
                 runway is                                          Borough is                              problems,                  flooding   the harbor.               break-up     erosion     harbor is
                 subject to                            Airport      analyzing                              particularly                     and    The Corps                ice jams    along the    currently
                   annual      determine               runway      construction               The Corps     along the                   erosion   has begun a               on the      riverbank.     being
    Kaktovik 293 flooding.     least cost        757 experiences   alternatives Barrow 4,581 has begun a    village's   Unalakleet 747     have     study on   Bethel 5,471 Kuskokwim   A seawall    repaired
                 FAA-funded   alternative.            flooding        for an                 feasibility     utility                   combined    improving                River       to protect      and
                   study                              and is at     evacuation                study to      corridor.                        to   navigational              cause        the dock    extended.
                 under way                             risk of        road.                    address                                 create a     access.                 both        and small
                     to                               erosion.                                  beach                                   chronic                             periodic       boat                 Source:
                                           Point      The North                               flooding                                  problem                             flooding                              GAO
                                           Hope         Slope                                and erosion                                     at                             and                                analysis.

    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)

                                      Source: FAA.

    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)

    Source: Kawerak.

    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.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

    18Under 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.

    into law in November 2003.19 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.20

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

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

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

    Source: Alaska Division of Emergency Services.

    Five Villages Are Conducting Flooding and Erosion Studies or Improving
    Infrastructure

    Kaktovik

    The remaining five villages, while not in imminent danger, do experience
    serious flooding and erosion and are undertaking various
    infrastructure	specific activities to resolve these problems. Kaktovik is
    studying how best to address flooding of its airport runway. Point Hope is
    studying alternatives for an emergency evacuation road in the event of
    flooding. Barrow has a study under way for dealing with beachfront erosion
    that threatens the village's utility corridor. Unalakleet is beginning a
    study to respond to erosion problems at its harbor and improve its
    navigational access. Finally, Bethel is repairing and extending an
    existing seawall to protect the village's dock from river erosion.

    The village of Kaktovik, located on Barter Island at the northern edge of
    the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, experiences flooding of its airport
    runway. The eastern end of the runway is approximately 1 to 2 feet above
    mean sea level, while the western end is approximately 7 to 8 feet above
    mean sea level. As a result of this low elevation, the runway usually
    floods every fall and is inoperative for 2 to 4 days, according to
    Kaktovik's mayor. In 2000, the North Slope Borough, which operates the
    airport, contracted with the

    Arctic Slope Consulting Group, Inc., to conduct a flood study at the
    airport. The study presented a preliminary cost estimate of $11.3 million
    for protecting the runway from damage by storm events resulting in
    100-year flood conditions. Recently, the North Slope Borough and FAA hired
    an engineering company to prepare an Airport Master Plan that will provide
    alternatives for upgrading the existing runway or building a new airport,
    either on Barter Island (estimated at $15 to $20 million) or on the
    mainland (estimated at $25 to $35 million). FAA will support the
    least-cost alternative and will fund 93.75 percent of the project, while
    the North Slope Borough will fund the remaining 6.25 percent. The study
    should be completed in 2004.

    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)

    Source: Tikigaq Corporation.

    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 During our review of these villages, we found
    instances where federal Investing in Infrastructure agencies invested in
    infrastructure projects without knowledge of the without Knowledge of
    villages' plans to relocate. For example, the Denali Commission and the

    Department of Housing and Urban Development were unaware ofVillages'
    Relocation Plans 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.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

    21Denali Transportation System Act, S. 295, 108th Cong. (2003).

    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.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.

    22H.R. 2557, S:2011, 108th Cong. (2003).

    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.23 Many
    Alaska Native villages participate in this program.

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

    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.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

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

    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
    We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture,
    Defense, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,

    Our Evaluation
    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
    ofthe Denali Commission, the Governor of the state of Alaska, appropriate
    congressional committees, and other interested Members of Congress. Wewill
    also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
    will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

    If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me
    at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
    IX.

    Anu MittalDirector, Natural Resources

    and Environment

    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.1

    We identified federal flooding and erosion programs by searching the
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and by using other information.

    1A 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).

    Appendix I
    Objectives, Scope and Methodology

    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.

    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 Nonprofit organization

    Ahtna, Inc. Copper River Native Association

    The Aleut Corporation Aleutian Pribilof Island Association

    Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Arctic Slope Native Association

    Bering Straits Native Corporation Kawerak, Incorporated

    Bristol Bay Native Corporation Bristol Bay Native Association

             Calista Corporation Association of Village Council Presidents

    Chugach Alaska Corporation Chugachmiut

    Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Cook Inlet Tribal Council

    Doyon, Limited Fairbanks Native Association

    Koniag, Inc. Kodiak Area Native Association

    NANA Regional Corporation, Inc. Maniilaq Association

    Sealaska Corporation Central Council

    Thirteenth Regional Corporation No nonprofit organization

                                      Source: GAO.

    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 ChitinaNative Village of GakonaNative Village of Tazlina

    Aleut

    Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove

    Native Village of Akutan

    Native Village of Atka

    Native Village of Belkofskia

    Native Village of False Pass

    Native Village of Nelson Lagoon

    Native Village of Nikolski

    Pauloff Harbor Villagea

    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 Ungaa

    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 Communitya

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

    Native Village of KoyukNome Eskimo CommunityNative Village of Saint
    MichaelNative Village of ShaktoolikNative Village of ShishmarefVillage of
    SolomonStebbins Community AssociationNative Village of TellerNative
    Village of UnalakleetNative Village of WalesNative Village of White
    MountainNative Village of ElimNative Village of GambellNative Village of
    Savoonga

    Bristol Bay

    Native Village of ChignikNative Village of Chignik LagoonChignik Lake
    VillageVillage of Clark's Point Curyung Tribal Council (formerly Native
    Village of Dillingham)Egegik VillageEkwok VillageIgiugig VillageVillage of
    IliamnaIvanoff Bay VillageKokhanok VillageLevelock VillageManokotak
    VillageNaknek Native VillageNew Koliganek Village Council (formerly
    Koliganek Village)New Stuyahok VillageNewhalen VillageNondalton
    VillagePedro Bay VillageNative Village of Perryville

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

    Native Village of Pilot PointNative Village of Port HeidenPortage Creek
    Village (aka Ohgsenakale)South Naknek VillageTraditional Village of
    TogiakTwin Hills VillageUgashik Village

    Calista

    Akiachak Native CommunityAkiak Native CommunityVillage of AlakanukAlgaaciq
    Native Village (St. Mary's)Yupiit of AndreafskiVillage of
    AniakAsa'carsarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Mountain
    Village)Village of AtmautluakVillage of ChefornakChevak Native
    VillageNative Village of Chuathbaluk (Russian Mission, Kuskokwim)Village
    of Crooked CreekNative Village of EekEmmonak VillageNative Village of
    GeorgetownNative Village of Goodnews BayNative Village of Hooper
    BayIqurmuit Traditional Council (formerly Native Village of Russian
    Mission)Village of KalskagNative Village of KasiglukNative Village of
    KipnukNative Village of KongiganakVillage of KotlikOrganized Village of
    KwethlukNative Village of KwigillingokNative Village of Kwinhagak (aka
    Quinhagak)Lime Village

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

    Village of Lower KalskagNative Village of Marshall (aka Fortuna
    Ledge)Native Village of MekoryukNative Village of NapaimuteNative Village
    of NapakiakNative Village of NapaskiakNewtok VillageNative Village of
    NightmuteNunakauyarmiut Tribe (formerly Native Village of Toksook
    Bay)Native Village of NunapitchukOrutsararmuit Native Village (aka
    Bethel)Oscarville Traditional VillagePilot Station Traditional
    VillageNative Village of Pitka's PointPlatinum Traditional VillageVillage
    of Red DevilNative Village of Scammon BayVillage of SleetmuteVillage of
    Stony RiverTuluksak Native CommunityNative Village of TuntutuliakNative
    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

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

    Allakaket VillageAnvik VillageBeaver VillageBirch Creek Tribe (formerly
    listed as Birch Creek Village)Chalkyitsik VillageCircle Native
    CommunityNative Village of EagleEvansville Village (aka Bettles
    Field)Native Village of Fort YukonGalena Village (aka Louden
    Village)Organized Village of Grayling (aka Holikachuk)Holy Cross
    VillageHughes VillageHuslia VillageVillage of KaltagKoyukuk Native
    VillageManley Hot Springs VillageMcGrath Native VillageNative Village of
    MintoNenana Native AssociationNikolai VillageNorthway VillageNulato
    VillageRampart VillageNative Village of RubyShageluk Native VillageNative
    Village of StevensTakotna VillageNative Village of TanacrossNative Village
    of TananaTelida VillageNative Village of Tetlin

    Koniag
    Village of AfognakaNative Village of Akhiok

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

    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

    a Reported as vacant by the state of Alaska as of March 2003.

                                      Appendix IV

                        Comments from the Department of the Army

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

    Appendix IV
    Comments from the Department of the Army

    Appendix IV
    Comments from the Department of the Army

    See comment 1.

                                  Now on pp. 3 and 4.

    Appendix IV
    Comments from the Department of the Army

                                     See comment 2.

    Now on p. 4.

    Now on pp. 5 and 6. See comment 3.

    Appendix IV
    Comments from the Department of the Army

    Appendix IV
    Comments from the Department of the Army

                          Now on p. 17. Now on pp. 19 and 20.

    Appendix IV
    Comments from the Department of the Army

                                     Now on p. 22.

                                     Now on p. 26.

                                     Now on p. 29.

    Appendix IV
    Comments from the Department of the Army

                                     Now on p. 34.

                                     Now on p. 37.

                                     Now on p. 39.

                                     Now on p. 42.

                                     Now on p. 44.

    Appendix IV
    Comments from the Department of the Army

    Now on p. 44.

                                     See comment 4.

    Appendix IV
    Comments from the Department of the Army

                                      Appendix IV
                        Comments from the Department of the Army

    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.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    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. S: 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.

    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.

    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.

    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).

    Appendix V

    Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Appendix V
    Comments from the Department of the
    Interior

    Now on p. 29.
    Now on pp. 34 and 35.

    Appendix VI

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

                                      Appendix VII

                          Comments from the Denali Commission

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

    Appendix VII
    Comments from the Denali Commission

                                     See comment 1.

                                     See comment 2.

                                      Appendix VII
                          Comments from the Denali Commission

    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.

    2.

    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.

    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.

                                     Appendix VIII

                           Comments from the State of Alaska

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

    Comments for the Denali Commission are in appendix VII.

    Appendix VIII
    Comments from the State of Alaska

    See comment 1.

    Now on p. 26.

    See comment 2. Now on p. 42.

    Now on p. 43.

    Appendix VIII
    Comments from the State of Alaska

    Appendix VIII
    Comments from the State of Alaska

    Now on p. 32.

    Now on pp. 3, 22, and 23.

    Now on pp. 4 and 26.

    Now on pp. 2 and 13.

    Appendix VIII
    Comments from the State of Alaska

    Now on pp. 4, 29, and 32.

    Now on p. 26.

    Now on p. 26.

    Appendix VIII
    Comments from the State of Alaska

                                     Now on p. 32.

                                     Appendix VIII
                           Comments from the State of Alaska

    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.

    2.

    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.1 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.

    It is not our intent to expand the role of the Denali Commission to
    include a disaster response and recovery component.

    1H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-731, at 15 (2002).

    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, Jose Alfredo Gomez,
    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.

    GAO's Mission	The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
    constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
    accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
    examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
    and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
    Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
    commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
    accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    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 fulltext 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, 	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

    Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

    Federal Programs 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

                                   Presorted Standard
                                  Postage & Fees Paid
                                          GAO
                                    Permit No. GI00

    United States
    General Accounting Office
    Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

    Official Business
    Penalty for Private Use $300

    Address Service Requested
    *** End of document. ***