Alaska Native Villages
Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion Have Difficulty Qualifying for Federal Assistance Gao ID: GAO-04-895T June 29, 2004Approximately 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.
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 (1) expanding the role of the Denali Commission; (2) directing federal agencies to consider social and environmental factors in analyzing project costs and benefits; (3) waiving the federal cost-sharing requirement for these projects; (4) 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.
GAO-04-895T, Alaska Native Villages: Villages Affected by Flooding and Erosion Have Difficulty Qualifying for Federal Assistance
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-895T
entitled 'Alaska Native Villages: Villages Affected by Flooding and
Erosion Have Difficulty Qualifying for Federal Assistance' which was
released on June 29, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 8:30 a.m. AKDT:
Tuesday, June 29, 2004:
Alaska Native 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:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-895T, a testimony before the Committee on
Appropriations, United States Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Approximately 6,600 miles of Alaska‘s coastline and many of the low-
lying areas along the state‘s rivers are subject to severe flooding
and erosion. Most of Alaska‘s Native villages are located on the coast
or on riverbanks. In addition to the many federal and Alaska state
agencies that respond to flooding and erosion, Congress established the
Denali Commission in 1998 to, among other things, provide economic
development services and 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.
What GAO Found:
Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, of Alaska
Native villages to some extent. While many of the problems are long-
standing, various studies indicate that coastal villages are becoming
more susceptible to flooding and erosion 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
* expanding the role of the Denali Commission,
* directing federal agencies to consider social and environmental
factors in analyzing project costs and benefits,
* waiving the federal cost-sharing requirement for these projects, and
* 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):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
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 mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 2] In December 2003, we
reported on Alaska Native villages' access to federal flooding and
erosion programs.[Footnote 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 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:
* 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 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.[Footnote 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.
Figure 1: Map of Alaska Showing Major Rivers, Oceans, and Mountain
Ranges:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Permafrost (permanently frozen subsoil) is found over approximately 80
percent of Alaska. It is deepest and most extensive on the Arctic
Coastal Plain and decreases in depth 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):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Rising temperatures have also affected the thickness, extent, and
duration of sea ice that forms along the western and northern coasts.
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.[Footnote 5] The
Department of Agriculture's Natural 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: Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946;
Description: For emergency streambank and shoreline erosion protection
for public facilities.
Program authority: Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948;
Description: Authorizes flood control projects.
Program authority: Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954;
Description: Authorizes flood control activities.
Program authority: Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962;
Description: Protect shores of publicly owned property from hurricane
and storm damage.
Program authority: Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968;
Description: Mitigate shoreline erosion damage caused by federal
navigation projects.
Source: GAO analysis of Corps program information.
[End of table]
In addition to the Corps' Continuing Authorities Program, other Corps
authorities that may address problems related to flooding and erosion
include the following:
* Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, which
provides authority for the Corps to assist states in the preparation of
comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, and conservation
of water and related resources of drainage basins.
* Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960, which allows the Corps'
Flood Plain Management Services' Program to provide states and local
governments technical services and planning guidance that is needed to
support effective flood plain management.
Table 2: NRCS Programs That Respond to Flooding and Erosion:
Program: Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program;
Description: Provides funding for projects that control erosion and
prevent flooding. Limited to watersheds that are less than 250,000
acres.
Program: Emergency Watershed Protection Program;
Description: Provides assistance where there is some imminent threat--
usually from some sort of erosion caused by river flooding.
Program: Conservation Technical Assistance Program;
Description: Provides technical assistance to communities and
individuals to solve natural resource problems including reducing
erosion, improving air and water quality, and maintaining or restoring
wetlands and habitat.
Source: GAO analysis of NRCS program information.
[End of table]
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 Villages Are Affected to Some Extent by Flooding and
Erosion:
Flooding and erosion affects 184 out of 213, or 86 percent, of Alaska
Native villages to some extent, according to studies and information
provided to us by federal and Alaska state officials. The 184 affected
villages consist of coastal and river villages throughout the state.
(See fig. 3.) 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. 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:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 8] According to
village leaders we spoke to, they may need to pay hundreds of thousands
of dollars or more under these cost-share requirements to fund their
portion of a project--funding many of them do not have.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
Figure 4: NRCS Seawall Erosion Protection Project at Unalakleet (c.
2000):
[See PDF for image]
Source: NRCS.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 12] Table 3 summarizes the status of the
nine villages' efforts to respond to their specific flooding and
erosion problems.
Table 3: Nine Alaska Native Villages' Efforts to Address Flooding and
Erosion:
Alaska Native village: Villages planning to relocate: Kivalina;
Population[A]: 388;
Status of efforts: Located on a barrier island that is both overcrowded
and shrinking. Cost estimates to relocate range from $100 million to
over $400 million. The 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.
Alaska Native village: Villages planning to relocate: Shishmaref;
Population[A]: 594;
Status of efforts: 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.
Alaska Native village: Villages planning to relocate: Newtok;
Population[A]: 329;
Status of efforts: Suffers chronic erosion along its riverbank.
Legislation for a land exchange with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
became law in November 2003 (Pub. L. No. 108-129). 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.
Alaska Native village: Villages taking other actions: Kaktovik;
Population[A]: 295;
Status of efforts: 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.
Alaska Native village: Villages taking other actions: Point Hope;
Population[A]: 725;
Status of efforts: Airport runway experiences flooding and is at risk
of erosion. The North Slope Borough is analyzing construction
alternatives for an evacuation road.
Alaska Native village: Villages taking other actions: Barrow;
Population[A]: 4,417;
Status of efforts: 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.
Alaska Native village: Villages taking other actions: Unalakleet;
Population[A]: 741;
Status of efforts: Coastal and river flooding and erosion have combined
to create a chronic problem at the harbor. The Corps has begun a study
on improving navigational access.
Alaska Native village: Villages taking other actions: Bethel;
Population[A]: 5,899;
Status of efforts: Spring break-up ice jams on the Kuskokwim River
cause 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.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Populations for the villages are based on 2003 Alaska State
Demographer estimates.
[End of table]
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 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 cost-sharing 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 Acknowledgments:
For further information, please contact Anu Mittal on (202) 512-3841.
Individuals making key contributions to this testimony and the report
on which it was based were José Alfredo Gómez, Jeffery Malcolm, Cynthia
Norris, Amy Webbink, and Judith Williams.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Pub. L. No. 105-277, tit. III, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
[2] H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-731, at 15 (2002).
[3] U.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).
[4] The size is determined by the average rate of flow (discharge at
the mouth).
[5] The Corps may study and construct erosion protection and flood
control structures, provided it receives authority and appropriations
from Congress to do so. In addition to building structures, the Corps
may also consider and implement non-structural and relocation
alternatives.
[6] This report was prepared for the Alaska Department of Community and
Regional Affairs, the predecessor of the Alaska Department of Community
and Economic Development.
[7] The Corps' guidelines are based on the Flood Control Act of 1936,
which provides that "the Federal Government should improve or
participate in the improvement of navigable waters or their tributaries
. . . if the benefits . . . are in excess of the estimated costs." 33
U.S.C. § 701a.
[8] The Corps has the authority to make cost-sharing adjustments based
upon a community's ability to pay under section 103 (m) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended. 33 U.S.C. §2213 (m).
[9] According 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.
[10] The Emergency Watershed Protection program was authorized under
the Flood Control Act of 1950, Pub. L. No. 81-516 (1950).
[11] The Conservation Technical Assistance Program was authorized under
the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, Pub. L. No.
74-46 (1935).
[12] The 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, §112, 117 Stat. 1827, 1835-36 (2003).
