Alaska Native Villages: Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion
Have Difficulty Qualifying for Federal Assistance (29-JUN-04,	 
GAO-04-895T).							 
                                                                 
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	 
meet infrastructure needs in rural Alaska communities. This	 
testimony is based on GAO's report, Alaska Native Villages: Most 
Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal
Assistance (GAO-04-142, December 12, 2003). Specifically, GAO	 
identified (1) the number of Alaska Native villages affected by  
flooding and erosion, (2) the extent to which federal assistance 
has been provided to those villages, (3) the efforts of nine	 
villages to respond to flooding and erosion, and (4) alternatives
that Congress may wish to consider when providing assistance for 
flooding and erosion.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-895T					        
    ACCNO:   A10639						        
  TITLE:     Alaska Native Villages: Villages Affected by Flooding and
Erosion Have Difficulty Qualifying for Federal Assistance	 
     DATE:   06/29/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Coastal zone management				 
	     Eligibility criteria				 
	     Federal aid to localities				 
	     Flood control					 
	     Flood control management				 
	     Land management					 
	     Rural economic development 			 
	     Erosion						 
	     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-04-895T

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on Appropriations,

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 8:30 a.m. AKDT ALASKA NATIVE

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

VILLAGES

Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion Have Difficulty Qualifying for Federal
                                   Assistance

Statement of Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director Natural Resources and
Environment

GAO-04-895T

Highlights of GAO-04-895T, a testimony before the Committee on
Appropriations, United States Senate

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 meet infrastructure needs in rural Alaska communities.

This testimony is based on GAO's report, Alaska Native Villages: Most Are
Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance
(GAO-04-142, December 12, 2003). Specifically, GAO identified (1) the
number of Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion, (2) the
extent to which federal assistance has been provided to those villages,
(3) the efforts of nine villages to respond to flooding and erosion, and
(4) alternatives that Congress may wish to consider when providing
assistance for flooding and erosion.

GAO's December 2003 report suggested that Congress consider directing the
relevant federal agencies and the Denali Commission to assess the
feasibility of alternatives for responding to flooding and erosion.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-895T.

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].

June 29, 2004

ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES

Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion Have Difficulty Qualifying 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 caused in part by rising
temperatures.

Small and remote Alaska Native villages have generally not received
federal assistance under federal flooding and erosion programs largely
because they do not meet program eligibility criteria. Even villages that
do meet the eligibility criteria may still not receive assistance if they
cannot meet the cost-share requirements for the project.

Of the nine villages that GAO reviewed, 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.

GAO, other federal and state officials, and village representatives
identified alternatives that could increase service delivery for Alaska
Native villages. These alternatives include

o  expanding the role of the Denali Commission,

o  	directing federal agencies to consider social and environmental
factors in analyzing project costs and benefits,

o  waiving the federal cost-sharing requirement for these projects, and

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

Although the Denali Commission and two federal agencies raised questions
about expanding the role of the Denali Commission in commenting on GAO's
report, GAO still believes it continues to be a possible alternative for
helping to mitigate the barriers that villages face in obtaining federal
services.

Bluff Erosion at the Native Village of Shishmaref (June 2003)

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on Alaska Native
villages affected by flooding and erosion. As you know, Alaska's
shorelines and riverbanks serve as home to over 200 Native villages whose
inhabitants generally hunt and fish for subsistence. However, these
shorelines and riverbanks can be subject to periodic, yet severe flooding
and erosion. 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. Several federal
and state agencies are directly or indirectly involved in providing
assistance for flooding and erosion in Alaska. In addition to government
agencies, the Denali Commission, created by Congress in 1998, is charged
with addressing crucial needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly
isolated Alaska Native villages, although it is not directly responsible
for responding to flooding and erosion.1

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 December 2003, we reported on Alaska Native
villages' access to federal flooding and erosion programs.3 These programs
are administered by several federal agencies, but principally by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Agriculture Department's Natural Resources
Conservation Service. Our report discussed four alternatives that could
help mitigate the barriers that villages face in obtaining federal
services. Our testimony today is based on that report and focuses on (1)
the number of Alaska Native villages affected by flooding and erosion, (2)
the extent to which federal assistance has been provided to those
villages, (3) the efforts of nine villages to respond to flooding and
erosion, and (4) alternatives that Congress may wish to consider when
providing assistance for flooding and erosion of Alaska Native villages.

To meet these objectives, we reviewed federal and state flooding and
erosion studies and project documents and interviewed federal and state
agency officials and representatives from nine Alaska Native villages. We

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

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

3U.S. General Accounting Office, Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected
by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance,
GAO-04-142 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2003).

also visited four of the nine villages. While the conference report
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 state officials familiar with
flooding and erosion problems. Our December 2003 report, on which this
testimony is based, was prepared in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

In summary, we reported the following:

o  	First, 184 out of 213, or 86 percent of Alaska Native villages
experience some level of flooding and erosion, according to federal and
state officials in Alaska. Native villages on the coast or along rivers
have long been 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 delay formation of protective shore ice, 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 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.

o  	Second, small and remote Alaska Native villages often fail to qualify
for assistance under federal flooding and erosion programs because they do
not meet program eligibility 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 economic benefits as currently defined. 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
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.

o  	Third, of the nine villages that we reviewed, 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. The five villages not currently 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.

o  	Fourth, federal and Alaska state officials and Alaska Native village
representatives that we spoke with identified the following three
alternatives that could help mitigate barriers to villages' obtaining
federal services: (1) expand the role of the Denali Commission to include
responsibility for managing a new flooding and erosion assistance program,
(2) direct the federal agencies to consider social and environmental
factors in their cost benefit analyses for these projects, and (3) waive
the federal cost-sharing requirement for flooding and erosion programs for
Alaska Native villages. In addition, we identified as a fourth alternative
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, in our report we suggested the Congress consider directing
relevant federal agencies and the Denali Commission to assess the
feasibility of each of the alternatives, as appropriate. In commenting on
our report, the Denali Commission and two federal agencies raised
questions about expanding the Denali Commission's role to cover flooding
and erosion. 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
this should be accomplished or by whom. As a result, we continue to
believe that expanding the role of the commission is a viable alternative.

Background 	Alaska encompasses an area of about 365 million acres-more
than the combined area of the next three largest states of 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 through wave action, ocean currents, storms, and river deposits
and is subject to periodic, yet often 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.4 (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.

4The 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 further south, eventually becoming
discontinuous. 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. However, rising
temperatures in recent years have led to widespread thawing of the
permafrost, causing serious damage. As permafrost melts, land slumps and
erodes, buildings and runways sink, and bulk fuel tank areas are
threatened. (See fig. 2.)

Figure 2: Sea Erosion at Shishmaref (June 2003)

Rising temperatures have also affected the thickness, extent, and duration
of sea ice that forms along the western and northern coasts. Loss of sea
ice leaves coasts more vulnerable to waves, storm surges, and erosion.
When combined with the thawing of permafrost along the coast, loss of sea
ice seriously threatens 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
themselves too far away to be hunted.

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.5 The Department of Agriculture's Natural

5The 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.

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is responsible for protecting small
watersheds. The Continuing Authorities Program, administered by the Corps,
and the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, administered by
NRCS, are the principal programs available to prevent flooding and control
erosion. Table 1 below lists and describes the five authorities under the
Corps' Continuing Authorities Program that address flooding and erosion,
while table 2 identifies the main NRCS programs that provide assistance
for flooding and erosion.

Table 1: 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 Act of 1954

    Authorizes flood control activities Section 103 of the River and Harbor

Act of 1962 Protect shores of publicly owned property from hurricane and
storm damage

                      Section 111 of the River and Harbor

Act of 1968 Mitigate shoreline erosion damage caused by 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 2: NRCS Programs That Respond to Flooding and Erosion

Program Description

Watershed Protection and Flood Provides funding for projects that control

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

Emergency Watershed Protection Provides assistance where there is some

Program	imminent threat-usually from some sort of erosion caused by river
flooding.

Conservation Technical Assistance Provides technical assistance to
communities

Program	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.

A number of other federal agencies, such as the Departments of
Transportation, Homeland Security (Federal Emergency Management Agency),
and Housing and Urban Development, also have programs that can assist
Alaska Native villages in responding to the consequences of flooding by
funding tasks such as moving homes, repairing roads and boardwalks, or
rebuilding airport runways. In additional 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.

On the state side, Alaska's 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.

Most Alaska Native Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86
percent, of Alaska

Native villages to some extent, according to studies and information
Villages Are Affected provided to us by federal and Alaska state
officials. The 184 affected to Some Extent by villages consist of coastal
and river villages throughout the state. (See fig.

3.) Villages on the coast are affected by flooding and erosion from the
sea.Flooding and Erosion For example, when these villages are not
protected by sea ice, they are at risk of flooding and erosion from storm
surges. In the case of Kivalina, the

community has experienced frequent 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 containing ice. Communities
in low-lying areas along riverbanks or in river deltas are susceptible to
flooding and erosion caused by ice jams, snow and glacial melts, rising
sea levels and heavy rainfall.

Figure 3: Locations of 184 Alaska Native Villages Affected by Flooding and
Erosion

Flooding and erosion are long-standing problems in Alaska. In Bethel,
Unalakleet, and Shishmaref for example, these problems have been well
documented 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.6 This list
identified 169 of the 213 Alaska Native villages, virtually the same
villages identified by federal and state officials that we consulted in
2003. In addition, the state appointed an Erosion Control Task Force in
1983 to investigate and inventory potential erosion problems and to
prioritize erosion sites by severity and need. In its January 1984 final
report, the task force identified a total of 30 priority communities with
erosion problems. Of these 30 communities, 28 are Alaska Native villages.
Federal and state officials that we spoke with in 2003 also identified
almost all of the Native communities given priority in the 1984 report as
still needing assistance.

While most Alaska Native villages are affected to some extent by flooding
and erosion, quantifiable data are not available to fully assess the
severity of the problem. Federal and Alaska state agency officials that we
contacted 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.

While flooding and erosion 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.

6This report was prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and
Regional Affairs, the predecessor of the Alaska Department of Community
and Economic Development.

  Alaska Native Villages Have Difficulty Qualifying for Federal Assistance

Alaska Native villages have difficulty qualifying for assistance under the
key federal flooding and erosion programs, largely because of program
requirements that the project costs not exceed economic benefits, or
because of cost-sharing requirements. For example, according to the Corps'
guidelines for evaluating water resource projects, the Corps generally
cannot undertake a project whose costs exceed its expected economic
benefits as currently defined.7 With few exceptions, Alaska Native
villages' requests for the Corps' assistance are denied because of the
Corps' determination that project costs outweigh the expected economic
benefits. Alaska Native villages have difficulty meeting the cost/benefit
requirement because many 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. However, the Corps decided not to
fund an erosion project for this village because the cost of the project
exceeded 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. Meeting the
cost/benefit requirement is especially difficult for remote Alaska Native
villages because the cost of construction is high-largely because labor,
equipment, and materials have to be brought in from distant locations.

Even villages that do meet the Corps' cost/benefit criteria may still not
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.8 According to village leaders we spoke to, they may need
to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or more under these cost-share

7The 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.

8The 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).

requirements to fund their portion of a project-funding many of them do
not have.9

NRCS has three key programs that can provide assistance to villages to
protect against flooding and erosion. One program-the Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Program-has a cost/benefit requirement similar to the
Corps program and as a result, few projects for Alaska Native villages
have been funded under this program. In contrast, some villages have been
able to qualify for assistance from NRCS's two other programs-the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program and the Conservation Technical
Assistance Program. For example, under its Emergency Watershed Protection
Program, NRCS allows consideration of additional factors in the
cost/benefit analysis.10 Specifically, NRCS considers social or
environmental factors when calculating the potential benefits of a
proposed project, and the importance of protecting the subsistence
lifestyle of an Alaska Native village can be included as one of these
factors. In addition, while NRCS encourages cost sharing by local
communities, this requirement can be waived when the local community
cannot afford to pay for a project under this program. Such was the case
in Unalakleet, where the community had petitioned federal and state
agencies to fund its local cost-share of an erosion protection project and
was not successful. Eventually, NRCS waived the cost-share requirement for
the village and covered the total cost of the project itself. (See fig.
4.) Another NRCS official in Alaska estimated that about 25 villages
requested assistance under this program during the last 5 years, and 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 and therefore
ineligible for the program.

9According to state of Alaska officials, historically the state has
provided the nonfederal matching funds for most Corps of Engineers (and
other federal) projects, but with the extreme budget deficits currently
faced by the state of Alaska, matching funds have been severely limited.

10The Emergency Watershed Protection program was authorized under the
Flood Control Act of 1950, Pub. L. No. 81-516 (1950).

Figure 4: NRCS Seawall Erosion Protection Project at Unalakleet (c. 2000)

Source: NRCS.

Unlike any of the Corps' or NRCS's other programs, NRCS's Conservation
Technical Assistance Program does not require any cost-benefit analysis
for projects to qualify for assistance.11 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 help
communities and individuals solve natural resource problems, improve the
health of the watershed, reduce erosion, improve air and water quality, or
maintain or improve wetlands and habitat. The technical assistance
provided can range from advice or consultation to developing planning,
design, and/or engineering documents. The program does not fund
construction or implementation of projects.

11The Conservation Technical Assistance Program was authorized under the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, Pub. L. No. 74-46
(1935).

  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. 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 planning process
for relocation. Because of the high cost of construction 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
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. Of the five
villages not currently 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 planning to repair and extend an existing seawall to
protect the village's dock from river erosion. In fiscal year 2003, the
Senate Committee on Appropriations directed the Corps to perform an
analysis of costs associated with continued erosion of six of these nine
villages, potential costs of relocating the villages, and to identify the
expected timeline for complete failure of useable land associated with
each community.12 Table 3 summarizes the status of the nine villages'
efforts to respond to their specific flooding and erosion problems.

12The Senate report for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2003, Pub.

L. No. 108-7 (2003), directed the Corps to study the following communities
in Alaska: Bethel, Dillingham, Shishmaref, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Unalakleet,
and Newtok. S. Rep. No. 107-220 at 23-24 (2002). The Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2004 further provided that the $2 million
previously provided in the 2003 appropriations was "to be used to provide
technical assistance at full Federal expense, to Alaskan communities to
address the serious impacts of coastal erosion." Pub. L. No. 108-137,
S:112, 117 Stat. 1827, 1835-36 (2003).

 Table 3: Nine Alaska Native Villages' Efforts to Address Flooding and Erosion

Alaska Native village Populationa Status of efforts Villages planning to
relocate

Kivalina 388 	Located on a barrier island that is both overcrowded and
shrinking. Cost estimates to relocate range from $100 million to over $400
million. The Corps is currently negotiating a scope of work for relocation
alternatives under both the Planning Assistance to States Program and the
Alaska Villages Erosion Technical Assistance Program.

Shishmaref 594 	Located on a barrier island and experiencing chronic
erosion. Recently selected a relocation site. In the meantime, a Bureau of
Indian Affairs funded seawall was recently completed to temporarily
protect a road project and the Corps is starting a Section 14 project to
extend this seawall to protect the school as well.

Newtok 329 	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). Interim Conveyance No. 1876 signed in
April 2004. Relocation studies are continuing under the Corps' Planning
Assistance to States Program and the Alaska Villages Erosion Technical
Assistance Program.

                         Villages taking other actions

    Kaktovik  295   Airport runway is subject to annual flooding. The Federal 
                                               Aviation Administration funded 
                   a study to determine least-cost alternative, but consensus 
                                              on a site for a new airport has 
                                       not been reached.                      
              725 Airport runway experiences flooding and is at risk of       
Point Hope     erosion. The North Slope Borough                            
                   is analyzing construction alternatives for an evacuation   
                                             road.                            

Barrow 4,417 	The Corps is currently conducting a 5-year feasibility study
of storm damage reduction measures. The underlying authority for this
study is the "Rivers and Harbors in Alaska" study resolution adopted by
the House of Representatives Committee on Public Works on December 2,
1970.

Unalakleet   741 Coastal and river flooding and erosion have combined to   
                    create a chronic problem at                               
                      the harbor. The Corps has begun a study on improving    
                                      navigational access.                    
     Bethel         Spring break-up ice jams on the Kuskokwim River cause     
              5,899 both periodic flooding and                                
                       severe erosion along the riverbank. A Corps project to 
                                             repair and extend the seawall to 
                     protect the dock and small boat harbor is stalled over   
                                         land easements.                      

  Alternatives for Addressing Barriers That Villages Face in Obtaining Federal
  Services

Source: GAO analysis.

aPopulations for the villages are based on 2003 Alaska State Demographer
estimates.

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 project costs 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 new 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
costsharing requirement for flooding and erosion projects for Alaska
Native villages. In addition, we 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
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.

In conclusion, Alaska Native villages are being increasingly affected by
flooding and erosion problems being worsened at least to some degree by
climatological changes. They must nonetheless find ways to respond to
these problems. Many Alaska Native villages that are small, remote, and
have a subsistence lifestyle, lack the resources to address the problems
on their own. Yet villages have difficulty finding assistance under
several federal programs, because as currently defined 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. Given the unique circumstances
of Alaska Native villages, special measures may be required to ensure that
these communities receive the assistance they need to respond to problems
that could continue to increase.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee my have at
this time.

Contact and	For further information, please contact Anu Mittal on (202)
512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony and the
report on

Acknowledgments 	which it was based were Jose Alfredo Gomez, Jeffery
Malcolm, Cynthia Norris, Amy Webbink, and Judith Williams.

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.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and 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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***