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 [email protected].

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: [email protected]

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

Public Affairs	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (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. ***