Alaska Native Villages
Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion Gao ID: GAO-09-551 June 3, 2009In December 2003, GAO reported that most of Alaska's more than 200 Native villages were affected to some degree by flooding and erosion (GAO-04-142). Since 2003, state officials have identified the growing impacts of climate change, increasing the urgency of federal and state efforts to identify imminently threatened villages and assess their relocation options. GAO was asked to report on (1) the flooding and erosion threats that Alaska Native villages currently face, (2) the federal programs that are available to assist villages facing potential disasters, (3) the status of village relocation efforts, and (4) how federal assistance to relocating villages is prioritized. GAO interviewed and gathered documentation from federal and state agency officials as well as regional organizations and village representatives.
While the flooding and erosion threats to Alaska Native villages have not been completely assessed, since 2003, federal, state, and village officials have identified 31 villages that face imminent threats. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) March 2009 Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment identified many villages threatened by erosion, but did not assess flooding impacts. At least 12 of the 31 threatened villages have decided to relocate--in part or entirely--or to explore relocation options. Federal programs to assist threatened villages prepare for and recover from disasters and to protect and relocate them are limited and unavailable to some villages. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has several disaster preparedness and recovery programs, but villages often fail to qualify for them, generally because they may lack approved disaster mitigation plans or have not been declared federal disaster areas. Although there is no single comprehensive proactive federal program to assist villages with their relocation efforts, individual federal agencies can assist villages on specific projects, such as funding the construction or relocation of homes. However, 64 villages do not qualify for affordable housing and relocation assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant program because the federal law governing the program does not recognize unincorporated Alaska Native villages in Alaska's unorganized borough as eligible units of general local government. Of the 12 villages exploring relocation options, Newtok has made the most progress in its relocation efforts. The Newtok Planning Group, formed in 2006 by federal, state, regional, and village partners, has helped to accelerate the relocation process that the village proactively initiated in 1994. The 3 other villages that will likely need to relocate all at once--Kivalina, Shaktoolik, and Shishmaref--have yet to identify sites that federal, state, and village officials agree are safe, sustainable, and desirable for the subsistence lifestyle of the villagers. Eight other villages have begun to gradually migrate to new locations over time or are evaluating options for doing so. In the absence of a lead entity, federal agencies individually prioritize assistance to villages on the basis of their programs' criteria. These criteria do not necessarily ensure that the villages in greatest peril get the highest priority, and although the Corps has assessed erosion threats, there is no lead federal entity to prioritize and coordinate assistance using this information. In 2007, the Newtok Planning Group reported that the lack of designated federal and state lead entities to guide, coordinate, and fund assistance impeded village relocation efforts and created uncertainty regarding the fulfillment of environmental analysis requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act. In 2008, the state designated a lead agency for village relocation assistance, and federal, state, and village officials told GAO that a similar lead federal entity is needed. Lead authority could be provided to an existing agency or commission, or a new entity could be formed for this purpose.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-551, Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-551
entitled 'Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on
Relocating Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion' which was
released on June 3, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2009:
Alaska Native Villages:
Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating Villages Threatened by
Flooding and Erosion:
GAO-09-551:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-551, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In December 2003, GAO reported that most of Alaska‘s more than 200
Native villages were affected to some degree by flooding and erosion
(GAO 04-142). Since 2003, state officials have identified the growing
impacts of climate change, increasing the urgency of federal and state
efforts to identify imminently threatened villages and assess their
relocation options. GAO was asked to report on (1) the flooding and
erosion threats that Alaska Native villages currently face, (2) the
federal programs that are available to assist villages facing potential
disasters, (3) the status of village relocation efforts, and (4) how
federal assistance to relocating villages is prioritized. GAO
interviewed and gathered documentation from federal and state agency
officials as well as regional organizations and village
representatives.
What GAO Found:
While the flooding and erosion threats to Alaska Native villages have
not been completely assessed, since 2003, federal, state, and village
officials have identified 31 villages that face imminent threats. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers‘ (Corps) March 2009 Alaska Baseline
Erosion Assessment identified many villages threatened by erosion, but
did not assess flooding impacts. At least 12 of the 31 threatened
villages have decided to relocate”in part or entirely”or to explore
relocation options.
Federal programs to assist threatened villages prepare for and recover
from disasters and to protect and relocate them are limited and
unavailable to some villages. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
has several disaster preparedness and recovery programs, but villages
often fail to qualify for them, generally because they may lack
approved disaster mitigation plans or have not been declared federal
disaster areas. Although there is no single comprehensive proactive
federal program to assist villages with their relocation efforts,
individual federal agencies can assist villages on specific projects,
such as funding the construction or relocation of homes. However, 64
villages do not qualify for affordable housing and relocation
assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development‘s
Community Development Block Grant program because the federal law
governing the program does not recognize unincorporated Alaska Native
villages in Alaska‘s unorganized borough as eligible units of general
local government.
Of the 12 villages exploring relocation options, Newtok has made the
most progress in its relocation efforts. The Newtok Planning Group,
formed in 2006 by federal, state, regional, and village partners, has
helped to accelerate the relocation process that the village
proactively initiated in 1994. The 3 other villages that will likely
need to relocate all at once”Kivalina, Shaktoolik, and Shishmaref”have
yet to identify sites that federal, state, and village officials agree
are safe, sustainable, and desirable for the subsistence lifestyle of
the villagers. Eight other villages have begun to gradually migrate to
new locations over time or are evaluating options for doing so.
In the absence of a lead entity, federal agencies individually
prioritize assistance to villages on the basis of their programs‘
criteria. These criteria do not necessarily ensure that the villages in
greatest peril get the highest priority, and although the Corps has
assessed erosion threats, there is no lead federal entity to prioritize
and coordinate assistance using this information. In 2007, the Newtok
Planning Group reported that the lack of designated federal and state
lead entities to guide, coordinate, and fund assistance impeded village
relocation efforts and created uncertainty regarding the fulfillment of
environmental analysis requirements under the National Environmental
Policy Act. In 2008, the state designated a lead agency for village
relocation assistance, and federal, state, and village officials told
GAO that a similar lead federal entity is needed. Lead authority could
be provided to an existing agency or commission, or a new entity could
be formed for this purpose.
What GAO Recommends:
Congress may want to consider (1) directing the Corps to conduct a
flooding assessment in Alaska to augment the Corps‘ recently completed
erosion assessment; (2) amending the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 to allow 64 additional villages to be eligible grant
recipients; and (3) designating, or creating, a lead federal entity
that could work in conjunction with the lead state agency to coordinate
and oversee village relocation efforts. In commenting on a draft of
this report, eight federal agencies and the state of Alaska generally
had no comments on these three matters for congressional consideration.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-551] or key
components. For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-
3841 or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
The Flooding and Erosion Threats to Villages Have Not Been Completely
Assessed, but Some Threatened Villages Are Exploring Relocation
Options:
Federal Disaster Programs Have Provided Limited Assistance to Villages,
and No Comprehensive Relocation Program Exists:
Most of the 12 Villages Exploring Relocation Options Have Made Limited
Progress:
Lacking a Lead Federal Entity to Prioritize and Coordinate Assistance,
Individual Agency Efforts May Not Adequately Address the Growing Threat
to Relocating Villages:
Conclusions:
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Additional Key Federal Programs That Can Address Flooding
and Erosion Problems:
Appendix II: Comments from the Denali Commission:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Thirty-one Alaska Native Villages That Have Been Identified as
Facing Imminent Flooding and Erosion Threats:
Table 2: The Population and Likely Relocation Scenario for the 12
Alaska Native Villages That Are Exploring Relocation Options:
Table 3: FEMA Disaster Mitigation and Recovery Programs:
Table 4: Corps Projects to Assist Alaska Native Villages Affected by
Flooding and Erosion:
Table 5: Status of Relocation Efforts for the Villages of Kivalina,
Shaktoolik, and Shishmaref:
Table 6: Status of 4 Alaska Native Villages That Have Gradually Moved
or Built Structures on Nearby Elevated Sites:
Table 7: Status of 4 Alaska Native Villages That Are Considering
Options for Gradually Relocating to Nearby Elevated Sites:
Figures:
Figure 1: Map of Alaska Showing Major Rivers, Oceans, and Mountain
Ranges:
Figure 2: Flooding in the Village of Golovin, Alaska (c. 2005):
Figure 3: Melting Sea Ice Reveals Prior Control Efforts and the Advance
of Erosion toward the Seawall Being Constructed in the Village of
Shishmaref, Alaska, June 2008:
Figure 4: Locations of 31 Alaska Native Villages Imminently Threatened
by Flooding and Erosion:
Figure 5: Locations of 12 Alaska Native Villages That Are Exploring
Relocation Options:
Figure 6: Shoreline Erosion Map for the Village of Newtok, Alaska,
October 2007:
Figure 7: Protection Projects for the Villages of Kivalina and
Shishmaref, Alaska, Summer 2008:
Abbreviations:
DCCED: Alaska's Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969:
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 3, 2009:
The Honorable Mary Landrieu:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Mark Begich:
United States Senate:
In December 2003, we reported that most of Alaska's more than 200
Native villages were affected to some degree by flooding and erosion,
most commonly caused by severe storm events on Alaska's coastline or by
river flooding, such as during the spring breakup of river ice.
[Footnote 1] Flooding and erosion have caused millions of dollars of
property damage in these remote villages and, in some cases, pose
imminent threats to lives, homes, and infrastructure. While federal and
state agencies administer programs for constructing flooding and
erosion control projects in threatened villages, some villages must
relocate to safer locations due to the severity of the problems. In
2003, we examined flooding problems in 9 villages and identified 4--
Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref--that were in imminent danger
and were planning to relocate to less vulnerable sites, a daunting
process that was expected to take many years to complete.[Footnote 2]
We found that successful relocation efforts would involve collaboration
among multiple federal and state entities and the villages, and we
reported on alternatives for addressing barriers that villages face in
obtaining federal services to mitigate flooding and erosion threats.
Since 2003, state officials have identified the growing impacts of
climate change in Alaska--which include melting polar ice, increasing
storm intensity, and coastal flooding--increasing the urgency of
federal and state efforts to identify imminently threatened villages
and assess their relocation options. In 2004, a congressional committee
directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to conduct an Alaska
erosion baseline study to coordinate and plan assistance for Alaska
villages with the greatest need and to provide an overall assessment on
the priority of which villages should receive assistance.[Footnote 3]
In September 2007, Alaska's Governor established the Climate Change Sub-
Cabinet to lead the preparation and implementation of an Alaska climate
change strategy. Within the sub-cabinet, an Immediate Action Workgroup
was created for the early assessment and development of an action plan
addressing climate change impacts on coastal and other vulnerable
communities in Alaska. While such efforts have begun to address the
immediate needs of some of the most imminently threatened villages,
many challenges remain. An October 11, 2007, congressional field
hearing in Anchorage, Alaska, of the Senate Ad Hoc Subcommittee on
Disaster Recovery, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, identified the obstacles faced by federal agencies and
villages. These obstacles include the inability of many villages to
meet the financial and other criteria for federal assistance, the high
cost of implementing protection or relocation projects for the remote
communities, and the lack of scientific erosion data for sound decision
making.[Footnote 4]
At your request, this report updates our 2003 report and the status of
village relocation efforts. Specifically, we are reporting on (1) the
flooding and erosion threats that Alaska Native villages currently
face, (2) the federal programs that are available to assist villages
facing potential disasters, (3) the status of village relocation
efforts, and (4) how federal assistance to relocating villages is
prioritized.
To determine the flooding and erosion threats that Alaska Native
villages currently face and the status of village relocation efforts,
we visited the villages of Alatna, Allakaket, Kivalina, Koyukuk,
Shaktoolik, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet and spoke by telephone with
representatives from the villages of Chefornak, Golovin, Hughes,
Huslia, Newtok, Nulato, and Teller. We selected these villages on the
basis of information from a variety of federal, state, and other
sources. We also met with and collected information from federal agency
officials of the Corps; the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park
Service; and the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). We met with members of the Immediate
Action Workgroup of the Alaska Governor's Sub-Cabinet on Climate
Change, including officials from the state Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED); Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management; and Department of Environmental
Conservation. We also met with officials of Alaska regional
authorities, such as the Northwest Arctic Borough; regional Native
organizations, such as the Tanana Chiefs Conference; and the Denali
Commission. While we did not independently assess villages' flooding
and erosion threats, we did attempt to identify the universe of
villages exploring relocation options to address their repetitive
flooding and erosion problems. We supplemented the Corps' list of
imminently threatened villages with additional villages that are also
exploring relocation options.
To determine the federal programs that are available to assist villages
facing potential disasters, we met with officials from additional
federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Interior's Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Department of Health and Human Service's Indian Health
Service, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the
Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration. We
reviewed applicable federal laws, regulations, and guidance for these
programs. We also spoke with officials from Native Corporations, such
as Kawerak, Inc., and Native village representatives, to determine what
federal assistance has been provided or requested. To determine how
federal assistance to relocating villages is prioritized, we reviewed
documentation of past, present, and planned efforts to prioritize
assistance to villages by all of the federal, state, and other entities
with which we met. We also asked federal agency officials to explain
their prioritization processes and the challenges that they face in
providing assistance to relocating villages.
We assessed the reliability of the federal and state data that we used
and found them to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this
report. We conducted this performance audit from June 2008 to June
2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
Alaska is the largest state in the union--encompassing 586,412 square
miles, it is one-fifth the size of the lower 48 contiguous states
combined. The state is bounded on three sides by saltwater bodies--the
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas to the north, the Bering Sea to the west, and
the Gulf of Alaska to the south (see fig. 1). Measured on the most
detailed maps available, including islands, Alaska has 33,904 miles of
shoreline. In addition, there are more than 3,000 rivers in Alaska,
including the major interior river systems of the Yukon and the
Kuskokwim Rivers.
Figure 1: Map of Alaska Showing Major Rivers, Oceans, and Mountain
Ranges:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Rivers depicted:
Copper River;
Kuskokwim River;
Yukon River.
Mountain ranges depicted:
Alaska Range;
Brooks Range.
Oceans depicted:
Beaufort Sea;
Bering Sea;
Chukchi Sea;
Gulf of Alaska.
Source: Pitney Bowes Business Insight (map).
[End of figure]
Despite its size, Alaska is one of the least populated states, with
about 680,000 people--90,000, or about 13 percent, of which are Alaska
Natives.[Footnote 5] Many Alaska Natives live in places long inhabited
by their ancestors in rural areas in western, northern, and interior
Alaska. Alaska Natives are generally divided into six major groupings:
Unangan (Aleuts), Alutiiq (Pacific Eskimos), Iņupiat (Northern
Eskimos), Yup'ik (Bering Sea Eskimos), Athabascan (Interior Indians),
and Tlingit and Haida (Southeast Coastal Indians).[Footnote 6] Many of
these Alaska Natives live in villages near the sea or river waters,
which they rely on to hunt, fish, and gather wild plants for food.
These subsistence activities are intricately woven into the fabric of
their lives and form the foundation for continuity between generations
by promoting the basic values of Alaska Native culture--generosity,
respect for elders, self-esteem for the successful hunters, and
community cooperation.
Typically, a coastal or river Native village has a population of a
couple of hundred people and generally contains only basic
infrastructure--homes; school; village store; health clinic; church;
city or tribal offices; post office; and washateria that provides
laundry, shower, and toilet facilities for a fee to residents of
villages without running water. Most of the villages are not accessible
by roads; instead, they have an airport runway adjacent or nearby that
provides the only year-round access to the community. Other
infrastructure in a village may consist of a bulk fuel tank farm; a
power plant; a water treatment facility; a water tank; meat drying
racks; a village sewage lagoon or dump site; and, for some villages,
commercial structures, such as a tannery or fish processing plant. Most
river villages also have a barge landing area where goods are delivered
to the community during the ice-free period.
While villages on Alaska's shorelines and river banks provide Alaska
Natives with access to food, transportation, and recreational and
cultural benefits, these locations also present dangers to the
inhabitants. In particular, these dangers include flooding--in coastal
communities, from seismic activity, such as tsunamis associated with
earthquakes, erosion, and surges from coastal storms, or in river
communities, from heavy rainfall, snow melt, or the sudden release of
water from behind breaking ice jams. According to the Alaska Division
of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, since 1978, there have
been 228 flooding events that have led to state disaster declarations
for 119 different Alaska communities. About 40 percent of these flood
disasters occurred from 2000 to 2008, with 23 occurring in 2005, the
worst year on record. Figure 2 shows the 2005 state flooding disaster
in Golovin, on Alaska's northwest coast.
Figure 2: Flooding in the Village of Golovin, Alaska (c. 2005):
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: Steve Ivanoff, Transportation Planner, Kawarek, Inc.
[End of figure]
The effects of climate change are believed by state officials to be
growing in Alaska, potentially having the greatest impacts on the
already vulnerable Alaska Native villages and the subsistence
lifestyles of their inhabitants. Permafrost (permanently frozen
subsoil), which is found over approximately 80 percent of Alaska and in
northern barrier island communities, literally helps to hold the land
together. Rising temperatures in recent years have led to widespread
thawing of permafrost, causing village shorelines and riverbanks to
slump and erode, threatening homes and infrastructure. Rising
temperatures also affect the thickness, extent, and duration of sea ice
that forms along the western and northern coasts. The loss of sea ice
leaves shorelines more vulnerable to waves and storm surges and,
coupled with the thawing permafrost along the coasts, accelerates the
erosion threatening Alaska Native villages (see figure 3). In addition,
the loss of sea ice changes 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 out of hunting range.
Figure 3: Melting Sea Ice Reveals Prior Control Efforts and the Advance
of Erosion toward the Seawall Being Constructed in the Village of
Shishmaref, Alaska, June 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The state of Alaska's government structure that may interact with
Native villages to help them meet their needs, including making
decisions about how to address flooding and erosion, may involve
several distinct entities. Alaska's constitution and state laws allow
for several types of regional and local government units--such as
boroughs, which are units of government that are similar to the
counties found in many other states. About one-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." Of 213 Alaska Native villages, 147 (or 69 percent) are
located within the 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. In other
cases, the tribal government may be the only form of local government
if the village (1) is located in the unorganized borough and (2) is not
an incorporated city; however, these tribal governments are not
political subdivisions of the state.[Footnote 7]
Alaska's Governor and DCCED have taken the lead for the state in
addressing flooding and erosion threats to Alaska Native communities.
The Immediate Action Workgroup of the Governor's Sub-Cabinet on Climate
Change is responsible for the early assessment and development of an
action plan addressing climate change impacts on coastal and other
vulnerable communities in Alaska. The workgroup is cochaired by state
and federal representatives from DCCED and the Corps, and includes
representatives from other key state agencies as well as the Denali
Commission, a federal-state cooperative entity.[Footnote 8] In April
2008, the workgroup provided its initial recommendations for actions--
including relocation planning--that should be taken in the ensuing 12
to 18 months to prevent the loss of life and property in Alaska's
communities at greatest peril from the effects of climate change. The
workgroup updated those recommendations in March 2009. DCCED is
responsible for coordinating and directing state agencies in providing
relocation assistance to villages.
As we reported in 2003, there is no single federal agency responsible
for managing and funding flooding and erosion programs in Alaska.
Instead, the Corps and NRCS administer key programs for constructing
flooding and erosion control projects to protect threatened villages
from further damage, and other federal agencies operate programs that
can address the consequences of flooding and erosion by, for example,
repairing roads or rebuilding airport runways. In 2003, congressional
committees acknowledged the impacts on Alaskan villages due to climate
change and directed the Corps to assess the erosion threat and estimate
relocation costs for 7 coastal villages--Bethel, Dillingham, Kaktovik,
Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet.[Footnote 9] The Corps
completed the Alaska Village Erosion Technical Assistance program
assessment in April 2006, and estimated that the villages of Kivalina,
Newtok, and Shishmaref have 10 years to 15 years before their current
locations are lost to erosion, and that the cost to relocate these
villages ranged from between $80 million and $200 million each. In
2004, a congressional committee directed the Corps to conduct an Alaska
erosion baseline study.[Footnote 10] In addition, the Corps was
provided with authority "to carry out, at full federal expense,
structural and non-structural projects for storm damage prevention and
reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial damage in Alaska,
including relocation of affected communities and construction of
replacement facilities."[Footnote 11] However, this authority was
repealed in March 2009.[Footnote 12]
The extent to which additional villages may need to relocate as the
impacts of climate change increase and of how federal agencies in
collaboration with state agencies can assist the villages in their
relocation efforts was discussed in an October 11, 2007, congressional
field hearing.[Footnote 13] Testimony was provided by representatives
from the Corps; FEMA; the state of Alaska's Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management; and the villages of Kivalina,
Newtok, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet. The federal agency representatives
described how their programs have provided assistance to villages and
the challenges they face in prioritizing and coordinating assistance
with other federal agencies, the state, and the villages. The senators
at the hearing also explored with the witnesses ways to expedite
assistance to villages (e.g., by waiving the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requirement for environmental analyses of the
impacts of federal projects)[Footnote 14] and to improve project
coordination (e.g., by appointing a coordinator for all federal
agencies to work with state and local partners to assist villages
needing immediate action).
Under NEPA, agencies evaluate the likely environmental effects of
projects they are proposing by using an environmental assessment or, if
the projects likely would significantly affect the environment, a more
detailed environmental impact statement. If an agency determines that
the activities of a proposed project fall within a category of
activities that the agency has already determined has no significant
environmental impact--called a categorical exclusion--then the agency
generally need not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement. In the event that more than one federal agency is
involved in the same action or involved in a group of actions directly
related to each other, NEPA regulations require that a lead agency
supervise the preparation of the environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement. NEPA analysis can occur at both the
programmatic and project levels. At the programmatic level, larger-
scale, combined effects and cumulative effects can be evaluated and
addressed, and overall management objectives are defined. At the
project level, the analysis of the effects of a particular action, in a
place, at a particular time are addressed. The Council on Environmental
Quality, which oversees the implementation of NEPA and reviews and
approves federal agency NEPA procedures, has issued regulations
governing federal agencies' implementation of NEPA. In emergency
circumstances, however, the federal agency can take action to control
the immediate impact of the emergency without observing these
regulations, but must consult with the council for alternative
arrangements for NEPA compliance.
The Flooding and Erosion Threats to Villages Have Not Been Completely
Assessed, but Some Threatened Villages Are Exploring Relocation
Options:
While the flooding and erosion threats to Alaska Native villages have
not been completely assessed, a growing number of imminently threatened
villages have been identified, and some have decided to relocate or are
exploring relocation options. Since our 2003 report, federal, state,
and village officials have identified 31 villages that face imminent
threats. At least 12 of the 31 imminently threatened villages have
decided to relocate--in part or entirely--or to explore relocation
options.
Thirty-one Imminently Threatened Villages Have Been Identified, but the
Threat Assessment Is Incomplete:
In December 2003, we reported that flooding and erosion affect 184 of
213 (or about 86 percent) Alaska Native villages to some extent, and
that the villages of Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref were in
imminent danger from flooding and erosion and were planning to
relocate. Since our 2003 report, federal, state, and village officials
have identified 31 villages that are imminently threatened by flooding
and erosion (see table 1).
Table 1: Thirty-one Alaska Native Villages That Have Been Identified as
Facing Imminent Flooding and Erosion Threats:
Village: Akiak;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Alakanuk;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Allakaket;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Empty];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Check].
Village: Barrow[A];
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Chefornak;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Chevak;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Clarks Point;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Eyak (Cordova);
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Deering;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Dillingham;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Emmonak;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Golovin;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Hughes;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Empty];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Check].
Village: Huslia;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Kivalina[A];
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Check];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Check];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Kotlik;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Koyukuk[A];
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Check];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Check];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Empty];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Kwigillingok;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Lime Village;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: McGrath;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Napakiak;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Newtok[A];
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Check];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Check];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Nulato;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Empty];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Check].
Village: Nunapitchuk;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Port Heiden;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Saint Michael;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Selawik;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Shaktoolik;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Check];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Shishmaref[A];
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Check];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Check];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Village: Teller;
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Empty];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Empty];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Check].
Village: Unalakleet[A];
Prior GAO report, 2003: [Empty];
State of Alaska's Immediate Action Workgroup, 2008: [Check];
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment, 2009: [Check];
Additional villages identified by village officials and other sources,
2009: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of federal, state, and village information.
[A] One of the 9 villages covered in detail in our December 2003
report. In addition to the 6 villages noted in this table, our December
2003 report also covered the villages of Bethel, Kaktovik, and Point
Hope.
[End of table]
The 31 imminently threatened villages are located throughout the state
of Alaska's river and coastal areas (see figure 4).
Figure 4: Locations of 31 Alaska Native Villages Imminently Threatened
by Flooding and Erosion:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Indicated on this map are the locations of the following villages:
Akiak;
Alakanut;
Allakaket;
Barrow;
Chefornak;
Chevak;
Clarks Point;
Deering;
Dillingham;
Emmonak;
Eyak (Cordova);
Golovin;
Hughes;
Huslia;
Kivalina;
Kotlik;
Koyukuk;
Kwigillingok;
Lime Village;
McGrath;
Napakiak;
Newtok;
Nulato;
Nunapitchuk;
Port Heiden;
Saint Michael;
Selawik;
Shaktoolik;
Shishmaref;
Teller;
Unalakleet.
Sources: GAO (analysis); Pitney Bowes Business Insight (map).
[End of figure]
Twenty-six of the imminently threatened villages were identified in the
Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment of 178 Alaska communities
that reported erosion problems, which was completed in March 2009.
[Footnote 15] The Corps' assessment was conducted in response to
language in the Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act, which stated the following:
"A field hearing was held in Anchorage, Alaska on June 29 and 30, 2004,
on the impacts of severe erosion and flooding on Alaska Native
villages. There is no Federal or State agency to coordinate and assist
these communities in the relocation or in the interim provide
preventative measures to slow the effects of the erosion and flooding.
The conference finds there is a need for an Alaska erosion baseline
study to coordinate and plan the appropriate responses and assistance
for Alaska villages in the most need and to provide an overall
assessment on the priority of which villages should receive assistance.
Therefore, the conference has provided the $2,000,000 for this study."
[Footnote 16]
The Corps identified these 26 priority communities through a process of
stakeholder meetings, research of prior reports, correspondence with
communities, and follow-up investigations of select communities. These
communities were assessed on various criteria, such as the level of
threat to critical infrastructure, human health and safety, housing,
and other factors.[Footnote 17]
However, the Corps did not assess flooding threats because, according
to Corps officials, it lacked the authority for such an assessment.
While the Conference Report language that led to the Corps assessment
refers to both flooding and erosion threats in the setup for the study,
the specific language calling for the study refers to it as "an Alaska
erosion baseline study." As a result, the Corps interpreted this
language to mean that it was only authorized to conduct a baseline
assessment of erosion threats. Without a comprehensive assessment of
both erosion and flooding threats that villages face, federal agencies
lack the necessary information on the magnitude of the problem and on
how best to prioritize and target limited resources. For example, the
village of Koyukuk, which we identified as threatened in our 2003
report, was not included on the Corps' list of priority communities
because it primarily suffers from repetitive flooding, rather than
erosion. The Corps' erosion study recognizes the importance of
assessing flooding threats and recommends seeking authority to expand
the assessment scope to include flooding, so that the Corps can provide
a more comprehensive assessment of the threats that Alaska Native
villages face.
In addition to the 26 villages imminently threatened by erosion that
the Corps identified, we included 5 additional imminently threatened
villages on the basis of our current and prior work and on the work of
the Alaska Governor's Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change Immediate Action
Workgroup. The additional villages of Allakaket, Hughes, Koyukuk,
Nulato, and Teller predominantly face flooding threats. For example,
according to the Tribal Administrator of Koyukuk, the lower-lying
location of much of the village makes it very susceptible to flooding
from the Koyukuk and Yukon Rivers. Koyukuk was also one of the
imminently threatened villages identified by the Immediate Action
Workgroup's April 2008 report. Similarly, we have included the villages
of Allakaket, Hughes, Nulato, and Teller on our list of imminently
threatened villages on the basis of our conversations with local
village or city leaders and regional tribal organizations.
Specifically, officials from the Tanana Chiefs Conference, a regional
nonprofit tribal organization that serves villages in the central
interior region of Alaska, identified Allakaket, Hughes, and Nulato as
member villages that have suffered severe or repetitive flooding or
erosion impacts. Similarly, officials from Kawarek, Incorporated, and
the Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority told us that the village
of Teller has suffered repetitive flooding and is building new homes
outside of the flood area. Local leaders confirmed the information
provided to us by these regional tribal organizations.
Twelve Imminently Threatened Villages Are Exploring Relocation Options
for All of, or a Portion of, Their Existing Villages:
According to federal, state, and village officials, at least 12 of the
31 imminently threatened villages have decided to relocate--in part or
entirely--or to explore relocation options. The villages of Kivalina,
Newtok, Shaktoolik, and Shishmaref will likely need to move all at once
and as soon as possible, since they continue to suffer flooding and
erosion and have limited emergency evacuation options (see table 2).
The remaining 8 villages that are considering relocation have the
option of gradually migrating to a safer location over time because
they have access to higher ground nearby and can move existing
structures to these sites or build new structures at the sites.
Table 2: The Population and Likely Relocation Scenario for the 12
Alaska Native Villages That Are Exploring Relocation Options:
Four villages that are likely to move all at once, as soon as possible:
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Kivalina;
Population: 398;
Threat profile: Identified in our December 2003 report as an imminently
threatened village seeking to relocate. Declared a state flood disaster
area in 2006. Subsequently, in October 2007, Kivalina evacuated most of
its residents when it was threatened by a sea storm with a forecasted
12-to 14-foot surge for the 10-foot elevation village. Village leaders
told us that this evacuation was so dangerous that it should never be
attempted again, and the villagers are considering relocation site
options.
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Newtok;
Population: 353;
Threat profile: Identified in our December 2003 report as an imminently
threatened village seeking to relocate. Declared a state flood disaster
area in 2004 and suffered additional flooding in 2005. Floodwaters from
the 2005 storm completely surrounded the village, turning it into an
island for several days, and the Ninglick River barge landing was
destroyed in that storm, making it difficult to deliver essential
supplies such as fuel to the village. Village residents have voted to
relocate.
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Shaktoolik;
Population: 214;
Threat profile: Declared a state flood disaster area in 2004 and 2005.
The 2005 storm cut off the village evacuation route to the south,
inundating the road with floodwater and turning the village into an
island. Storm surge has propelled large driftwood close to village
buildings, creating huge debris piles on the shoreline, and erosion is
now approaching village infrastructure. Village leaders are considering
relocation site options.
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Shishmaref;
Population: 609;
Threat profile: Identified in our December 2003 report as an imminently
threatened village seeking to relocate. Declared a state flood disaster
area in 2004 and 2005. Village leaders told us that in 2005, villagers
had to evacuate homes on the shoreline and move in with family or
friends in the central village, and that after the storm season, homes
were relocated from the shore to prevent their destruction. Village
leaders are considering relocation site options.
Eight villages that are likely to gradually migrate to a safer location
over time:
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Allakaket;
Population: 95;
Threat profile: Declared a federal disaster area in August 1994 when
Koyukuk River flooding damaged or destroyed nearly every home and
public facility in the village. Villagers are concerned that many homes
and most infrastructure remain in or near the floodplain.
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Golovin;
Population: 167;
Threat profile: Declared a state flood disaster area in 2004 and 2005.
The Corps' 2009 erosion assessment identified Golovin as a priority
community for erosion issues.
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Hughes;
Population: 76;
Threat profile:
Declared a state river ice breakup flood disaster area in 2006. Like
Allakaket, Hughes was declared a federal disaster area from the 1994
Koyukuk River flood.
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Huslia;
Population: 255;
Threat profile: The Corps' 2009 erosion assessment identified Huslia as
a priority community for addressing river erosion issues.
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Koyukuk;
Population: 89;
Threat profile: Identified in our December 2003 report as an imminently
threatened village seeking to relocate. Declared a state disaster area
in 2006 when more than half the residents were evacuated due to
unexpected river flooding.
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Nulato;
Population: 274;
Threat profile: Declared a state river ice breakup flood disaster area
in 2006.
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Teller;
Population: 256;
Threat profile: The village, which is surrounded by water on three
sides, was declared a state sea storm disaster area in 2004.
Villages, by likely relocation scenario: Unalakleet;
Population: 724;
Threat profile: Declared a state flood disaster area in 2003 and 2005.
Villagers told us that the 2005 storm was the most damaging, causing
severe erosion to the protective seawall and flooding in the village.
Source: GAO analysis of federal, state, and village information.
[End of table]
The 12 villages that are exploring relocation options are located in
river and coastal areas (see figure 5).
Figure 5: Locations of 12 Alaska Native Villages That Are Exploring
Relocation Options:
[Refer to PDF for image: map and six photographs]
12 villages that are exploring relocation options:
Allakaket (photograph included);
Golovin;
Hughes;
Huslia;
Kivalina (photograph included);
Koyukuk (photograph included);
Newtok (photograph included);
Nulato;
Shaktoolik (photograph included);
Shishmaref;
Teller;
Unalakleet (photograph included).
Sources: GAO (analysis); Pitney Bowes Business Insight (map).
[End of figure]
Federal Disaster Programs Have Provided Limited Assistance to Villages,
and No Comprehensive Relocation Program Exists:
Federal programs to assist threatened villages prepare for and recover
from disasters and to protect and relocate them are limited and
unavailable to some villages. While FEMA administers several disaster
preparedness and recovery programs, villages often fail to qualify for
these programs. Other federal agencies have individual programs, but
there is no single comprehensive proactive federal program to assist
villages with their relocation efforts.
FEMA Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Programs Have Provided Limited
Assistance to Villages:
FEMA, the lead federal agency for disaster preparation and recovery,
has several programs that could supplement state disaster mitigation
and recovery programs, but villages have had difficulty in meeting
program requirements. FEMA's five disaster mitigation programs and two
disaster recovery programs are summarized in table 3.
Table 3: FEMA Disaster Mitigation and Recovery Programs:
FEMA disaster mitigation programs:
Program: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program;
Description: Provides funds to states and Indian tribal governments to
assist communities in implementing long-term measures that
substantially reduce the risks of future damage, hardship, loss, or
suffering in an area devastated by a disaster;
Selected requirements:
* disaster mitigation plan;
* federal disaster declaration;
* cost-effective projects, and;
* cost share of 25 percent or more from the state or applicant.
Program: Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program[A];
Description: Provides funds to states, territories, Indian tribal
governments, and communities for hazard mitigation planning and the
implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event.
Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the
population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from
actual disaster declarations;
Selected requirements:
* disaster mitigation plan, unless grant is for development of such a
plan;
* cost-benefit analysis and cost-effective projects; and;
* cost share of 25 percent or more from the state or applicant (cost
share of 10 percent or more from the state or applicant for a small and
impoverished community).
Program: Flood Mitigation Assistance Program;
Description: Provides funds to states and communities (1) for
development of flood risk mitigation plans or (2) activities described
in approved plans to reduce the risk of flood damage to structures
covered under the National Flood Insurance Program, such as elevation,
acquisition, and relocation of buildings;
Selected requirements:
* flood risk mitigation plan, unless grant is for development of such a
plan;
* cost-effective projects;
* recipient matching requirement; and;
* participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Program: Repetitive Flood Claims Program;
Description: Provides funds to reduce flood damages to individual
properties for which one or more claim payments for losses have been
made under flood insurance coverage and that will result in the
greatest savings to the National Flood Insurance Program in the
shortest period of time;
Selected requirements:
* local mitigation plan required at the discretion of the FEMA
director;
* lack of capacity to manage Flood Mitigation Assistance grant activity
or inability to meet Flood Mitigation Assistance cost-share
requirements;
* cost-effective projects, and;
* participation in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Program: Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program[B];
Description: Provides funds to mitigate flood damage to residential
properties covered under a National Flood Insurance Program flood
insurance policy that have had either (1) four or more flood-related
insurance claims payments that each exceeded $5,000 and cumulatively
exceeded $20,000 or (2) at least two flood-related insurance claims
payments that cumulatively exceed the value of the property. In both
instances, at least two of the claims must be within 10 years of each
other;
Selected requirements:
* disaster mitigation plan;
* cost-effective projects;
* recipient matching requirement, and;
* participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and the pilot
program.
FEMA disaster recovery programs:
Program: Public Assistance Program;
Description: Provides aid to state government agencies; local
governments; Indian tribes, authorized tribal organizations, and Alaska
Native villages; and private nonprofit organizations or institutions
that provide certain services otherwise performed by a government
agency. Assistance is provided for projects such as debris removal;
emergency protective measures to preserve life and property; and the
repair and replacement of damaged structures, such as buildings,
utilities, roads and bridges, recreational facilities, and water-
control facilities (e.g., dikes and levees);
Selected requirements:
* federal disaster declaration and;
* cost share from the state or applicant.
Program: Individuals and Households Program;
Description: Provides for the necessary expenses and serious needs of
disaster victims that cannot be met through insurance or low-interest
Small Business Administration loans. FEMA provides temporary housing
assistance to individuals whose homes are unlivable because of a
disaster. Other available services include unemployment compensation
and crisis counseling to help relieve any grieving, stress, or mental
health problems caused or aggravated by the disaster or its aftermath.
FEMA can cover a percentage of the medical, dental, and funeral
expenses that are incurred as a result of a disaster;
Selected requirements:
* federal disaster declaration and;
* temporary assistance for primary residences only.
Source: FEMA.
[A] Scheduled to expire on September 30, 2009, unless the program is
reauthorized.
[B] Pilot program ends September 30, 2009.
[End of table]
Small and remote Alaska villages often fail to qualify for assistance
under these FEMA disaster mitigation and recovery programs because (1)
most villages lack approved mitigation plans, (2) few federal disaster
declarations have been made for flooding and erosion problems, and (3)
many villages cannot participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program.
* Most villages lack approved mitigation plans: Four of FEMA's hazard
mitigation grant programs require applicants to submit mitigation plans
for FEMA's approval to qualify for project funding, unless the grant is
intended to fund the development of such a plan. As of April 2009, only
33 Alaska Native villages had these plans in place, and, thus, they are
the only villages that can apply for these mitigation programs.
[Footnote 18] Twelve of these villages are among the 31 imminently
threatened villages identified in this report, and 5 of the villages--
Golovin, Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, and Unalakleet--are exploring
relocation options. In addition, FEMA distributes its mitigation
grants, with the exception of grants to develop hazard mitigation
plans, on the basis of the cost-effectiveness of the proposed project.
With low populations and high construction costs in rural Alaska,
village relocation projects have low benefit-to-cost ratios. As a
result, the 33 villages that can apply for the mitigation grant
programs to fund projects also face significant challenges to being
selected for these grants, according to FEMA officials.
* Few federal disaster declarations for flooding and erosion problems:
Eligibility for FEMA's two disaster recovery programs and the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program is generally limited to areas that have been
declared federal disasters, but since many of the villages are facing
gradual erosion problems and have not received a declared disaster
designation, they do not qualify for these programs.[Footnote 19] Since
1953, Alaska has had 32 federal disaster declarations. While none of
these federal disaster declarations were for erosion issues, 15 were
for flooding. However, only 4 Alaska Native villages--Alatna, Alakanuk,
Allakaket, and Shishmaref--received funding from FEMA's Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program for relocation activities associated with the
15 flooding disaster declarations. After a 1994 flood, Alatna received
$6,322,495 to relocate the entire village to higher ground, and
Allakaket received $919,191 to build 13 temporary homes and extend its
road, power, and telephone services to higher ground. Alakanuk received
$208,898 to relocate and elevate 15 homes and 1 city building after a
2002 flood. Most recently, Shishmaref received $21,485 to relocate 1
cottage after a 2004 flood.
* Many villages cannot participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program: FEMA's Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, Repetitive Flood
Claims Program, and Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program require
participation in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program.[Footnote 20]
No village in the unincorporated borough qualifies for this program,
unless it is an incorporated city. FEMA's former Administrator of
Region X also testified in 2007 that FEMA's mitigation programs have
insufficient funds to comprehensively address the Alaska Native
villages' erosion problem.
No Comprehensive Federal Relocation Program Exists, but Individual
Agencies Are Providing Some Relocation Assistance, and Other Flooding
and Erosion Mitigation Activities Are Ongoing:
While no comprehensive proactive federal relocation program exists to
assist villages with their relocation efforts, individual agencies are
providing some relocation assistance. Since our 2003 report, section
117 of the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act was enacted
to provide the Corps with new discretionary authority regarding
relocation activities. Specifically, section 117 stated the following:
"Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Secretary of the Army
is authorized to carry out, at full Federal expense, structural and non-
structural projects for storm damage prevention and reduction, coastal
erosion, and ice and glacial damage in Alaska, including relocation of
affected communities and construction of replacement facilities."
[Footnote 21]
Despite this new authority, which was subsequently repealed in March
2009,[Footnote 22] the Corps' role in village relocation efforts has
generally remained unchanged since our 2003 report and has been limited
to evaluating potential relocation sites for Kivalina, Koyukuk, and
Shishmaref and to designing an evacuation center and road for Newtok.
Other individual agencies have been providing planning assistance for
Newtok's relocation.
While the Corps had discretionary authority under section 117 to carry
out, at full federal expense, projects to address storm damage and
erosion, this authority was applied to few villages. Referring to this
authority, in fiscal year 2006, a congressional committee directed $2.4
million of the Corps' appropriation to the Alaska coastal erosion
projects. The 9 villages eligible to receive these funds were the same
9 villages covered in our 2003 report--Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik,
Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, Point Hope, Shishmaref, and Unalakeet.
[Footnote 23] An additional $10 million was directed to Alaska coastal
erosion projects in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 ($5 million per year).
[Footnote 24] These funds have been used to construct shoreline
barriers in Kivalina, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet to provide temporary
erosion protection. Assistance with relocation activities has consisted
of evaluating potential relocation sites for Kivalina, Koyukuk, and
Shishmaref, and designing an evacuation center and road for Newtok.
None of these funds have been used in Barrow, Bethel, or Kaktovik, and
funding for Point Hope has been limited to the initiation of studies.
Also in fiscal year 2008, the Corps elected to assist the city of
McGrath with an erosion control project and the city of Yakutat with a
flood damage reduction study at full federal expense. Table 4 describes
the Corps projects added since 2003 to assist villages affected by
flooding and erosion.
Table 4: Corps Projects to Assist Alaska Native Villages Affected by
Flooding and Erosion:
Project: Alaska Coastal Erosion;
Description: Funding for storm damage, erosion, and relocation projects
in Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, Point Hope,
Shishmaref, and Unalakeet. Prior to March 2009, the Corps, at its
discretion, could assume the full cost of each project;
Status: Constructing shoreline protection in Kivalina, Shishmaref, and
Unalakleet. Evaluating relocation sites for Kivalina, Koyukuk, and
Shishmaref. Designing evacuation road and center for Newtok.
Project: Alaska Villages Erosion Technical Assistance;
Description: A report to Congress on the impacts of coastal erosion for
Bethel, Dillingham, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, and
Unalakleet;
Status: Report submitted to Congress in 2006.
Project: Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment;
Description: An erosion study to coordinate and plan the appropriate
responses and assistance for Alaska villages in the most need and to
provide an overall assessment on the priority of which villages should
receive assistance;
Status: Report released in March 2009.
Project: Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies;
Description: Provided technical assistance, equipment, and 10,766
sandbags to Kivalina after flooding in 2006;
Status: Project completed in December 2007.
Project: Specifically Authorized Construction;
Description: Construction of shoreline barriers in Bethel and
Dillingham;
Status: Constructing barrier in Bethel. Designing barrier in
Dillingham.
Source: Corps.
[End of table]
With a few exceptions, the list of other federal programs that could
assist villages with flooding and erosion issues has mostly remained
the same as it was when we reported in 2003 (see app. I). Two notable
changes have occurred since our 2003 report. First, NRCS in 2005
amended its Emergency Watershed Protection Program's regulations to
allow the purchase of floodplain easements on nonagricultural land as
an emergency measure.[Footnote 25] Structures located within the
easement may be demolished or relocated outside of the floodplain. As a
result of this amendment, NRCS has funded the purchase of floodplain
easements from 2 Alaska Native villages--Evansville and McGrath. In
Evansville, NRCS plans to decommission one building and relocate
another building out of the floodplain, and in McGrath, the service
plans to remove structures. Also, NRCS's Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Program has received no funding appropriations in the last 2
years and, thus, has been mostly inactive, according to agency
officials.
Second, an issue has arisen since our last report regarding the
distribution of funds under HUD's Community Development Block Grant
program, which provides funding for housing, economic development, and
other community development activities, including affordable housing
and relocation assistance for displaced persons.[Footnote 26] On the
basis of a March 2007 determination by HUD, a number of Alaska Native
villages have been deemed ineligible to receive funds under this
program because the federal law governing the program does not take
into account Alaska's unique state government structure. Generally,
these block grant funds are distributed by the state to "units of
general local government" that are political subdivisions of the state.
[Footnote 27] However, 64 Alaska Native villages, including 3
imminently threatened villages (Kwigillingok, Lime Village, and
Newtok), located in the state of Alaska's unorganized borough do not
have an incorporated municipal government. As a result, there is no
unit of local government within the state government structure to
receive these block grant funds. In an attempt to remedy this problem,
in September 2006, the state requested to serve as the recipient on
behalf of the unincorporated villages in the unorganized borough.
However, in March 2007, HUD determined that the state was ineligible to
receive grants on these villages' behalf because the state was not a
unit of general local government, and this would entail the state
distributing the grants to itself. The 64 unincorporated villages in
the unorganized borough are at a competitive disadvantage for funding
because they are ineligible to receive HUD Community Development Block
Grant funds through the state. While these villages do not have a local
unit of state government, they do have tribal governments, and the
tribal governments or their designated tribal organizations do receive
funds under HUD's Indian Community Development Block Grant. Unlike the
two-thirds of the Alaska Native villages that are eligible for both the
regular Community Development Block Grant program and the Indian
Community Development Block Grant program, these 64 villages currently
face more limited funding options to address some of the impacts of
flooding and erosion in their communities.
Most of the 12 Villages Exploring Relocation Options Have Made Limited
Progress:
Of the 12 villages exploring relocation options, only Newtok has made
significant progress among the 4 villages that will likely need to
relocate all at once. Varying levels of progress have been made by the
8 villages that are gradually migrating to new locations over time.
Newtok Has Made the Most Progress of the 4 Villages That Will Likely
Relocate All at Once:
Newtok officials began evaluating the village's erosion problems on the
banks of the Ninglick River in 1983, when they hired a consultant to
assess the erosion problem and evaluate options for erosion control.
The assessment found that unchecked erosion would endanger community
structures within 25 years to 30 years, and that providing full
protection to stop erosion over the length of the riverbank would be
prohibitively expensive. Figure 6 shows the most recent update of
projected erosion. On the basis of this information, the Newtok
Traditional Council determined that the village must relocate.
Figure 6: Shoreline Erosion Map for the Village of Newtok, Alaska,
October 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map]
Newtok Shoreline Erosion:
Bank Erosion of the Ninglick River (1954-2007) With Erosion Projections
(2012-2027):
Depicted on the map are the following:
1954 Shoreline (USGS Topo map);
1983 aerial photo of shoreline;
1996 aerial photo of shoreline;
2002 aerial photo of shoreline;
2003 GPS data of shoreline;
2012 projected shoreline;
2017 projected shoreline;
2022 projected shoreline;
2027 projected shoreline.
Also depicted are the following:
1996 dump site;
Barge landing;
School;
Water source.
Historic shorelines digitized from U.S. Geological Survey topographic
maps and digital aerial photos. Projected shorelines are from
statistically derived averages and have not been calculated based on
actual Ninglick River data. Therefore, conservative erosion rate values
were used for these projections, ranging from 36 feet per year (ft/yr)
(west/downstream) to 83 ft/yr (east/upstream). Actual observations by
residents and raw, non-averaged data indicate periods of much higher
erosion rates. July 2003 shoreline represents a rate of 110 ft/yr.
Source: Newtok Planning Group (map and text).
[End of figure]
In 1994, the council started the relocation planning process by
analyzing six potential village relocation sites. In 1996, the village
residents were surveyed and they selected a relocation site known as
Mertarvik, located on the north end of Nelson Island approximately 9
miles southeast of Newtok. In 2000, the council hired a planning
consultant to assist in the development of relocation plans, and the
site layout and transportation plan for the selected relocation site
was completed in 2001. In 2002, the Corps assessed the site and
confirmed that it was feasible for community development. In 2003,
Congress approved a land exchange between the Newtok Native Corporation
and Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide the relocation
site, which is within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.
[Footnote 28]
According to village, federal, and state officials, the commitment of
the village residents to relocate and the proactive approach of the
village have been major contributors to the progress made by Newtok.
For example, subsequent to the initial site selection survey, the
village conducted two additional surveys, most recently confirming in
2003 that 92 percent of the villagers favored the selected site. The
results and methodology of this survey are documented in the January
2004 Newtok Background for Relocation Report prepared for the Newtok
Traditional Council. The council hired a consultant to produce the
report specifically to provide background documentation to government
agencies and officials to justify the relocation effort and support
future requests for government assistance in the process. To meet these
objectives, the consultant summarized previous studies, mapped the
historic advance of the river erosion, reported impacts on the village
and resident perspectives, and documented the proactive approach of the
village in response to the problem. The council submitted this report
to initiate a dialogue with agencies, obtain their advice and
assistance, and determine how their needs fit with existing government
programs. In April 2006, the Corps estimated that the cost to relocate
Newtok could range from $80 million to $130 million.[Footnote 29]
In May 2006, representatives from state, federal, and nongovernmental
organizations formed the Newtok Planning Group. The purpose of the
group is to identify agency resources and to establish an overall
strategy to assist Newtok in its relocation efforts, addressing both
the short-term needs in the existing village and the critical
infrastructure at the new village as well as long-term relocation
planning. The group is composed of the Newtok Traditional Council; the
Newtok Native Corporation; nine Alaska state departments and offices;
nine federal departments, commissions, and offices; and five Alaska
regional organizations.[Footnote 30] Since 2006, the collaborative
efforts of the Newtok Planning Group have resulted in significant
progress toward the relocation of Newtok, including the following:
* The completion of a community layout plan to guide the efficient and
orderly development of the new village with a grant funded by the
Denali Commission.
* The completion of a preliminary layout of water and sewer
infrastructure by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's
Village Safe Water Program as well as ongoing water source
investigations.
* The completion of geotechnical studies of the new site by the Corps
in collaboration with state agencies.
* The completion of a housing market survey to determine the housing
needs and desires of the community and submission of a grant proposal
to the Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc., for a demonstration
project for affordable, sustainable housing at the new site
incorporating design concepts from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
Cold Climate Housing Research Center.[Footnote 31]
* Three homes have been constructed by Newtok residents at a temporary
site, through grants from Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs Housing
Improvement Program. These homes will eventually be moved to the new
village.
* Reconnaissance for the placement of a new airport by the Alaska
Department of Transportation in collaboration with the Federal Aviation
Administration.
* The design and planned construction of a barge ramp, dock, and
staging area at the new village site to be completed in July 2009, with
grant funding from the Department of Commerce's Economic Development
Administration and state matching funds.
* The completion by the Corps in July 2008 of a project-level
environmental assessment for the construction of an evacuation center
and associated features, such as an access road, at the new site. The
Department of Defense's Innovative Readiness Training Program, which
partners military services with communities in need to provide
assistance and increase military readiness, has made a 5-year
commitment of troops and equipment to begin construction in 2010.
While the efforts of the Newtok Planning Group have accelerated the
village relocation, certain challenges may prevent the relocation from
proceeding as rapidly as possible in the future. A primary matter of
concern is how to address NEPA requirements, which require federal
agencies to review the likely environmental effects of major federal
actions. If more than one federal agency is involved in the same action
or group of actions directly related to each other, NEPA regulations
require a lead agency to supervise the NEPA evaluation. Currently, the
Corps is the lead agency for funding and planning the design and
construction of the evacuation center to be built at the new village
site, but there is no designated lead federal agency for the overall
relocation of the village. The Corps issued an environmental assessment
that found no significant impacts in July 2008. However, the Corps
assessed only the environmental effects of the evacuation center and
associated project features, including an access road from the barge
landing, a sewage lagoon and landfill, a quarry site, and connecting
roads. Participants in the Newtok Planning Group are concerned that
until a federal lead agency is identified for funding, planning,
designing, or constructing all of the other components of the village
relocation, the NEPA requirements for these other relocation components
will remain unfulfilled.
Kivalina, Shaktoolik, and Shishmaref--the other 3 threatened villages
that will likely need to move all at once due to the imminent threat--
are significantly behind Newtok in their efforts to relocate.
Specifically, none of these villages have yet identified relocation
sites that federal, state, and village officials agree are safe,
sustainable, and desirable for the subsistence lifestyle of the
villagers (see table 5).
Table 5: Status of Relocation Efforts for the Villages of Kivalina,
Shaktoolik, and Shishmaref:
Village: Kivalina;
Status: Villagers have been discussing relocation since 1991 and have
identified a preferred location by vote. The Corps' June 2006
Relocation Planning Project Master Plan for Kivalina assessed six
alternative relocation sites, finding that the village-preferred site
is unsuitable for development and prone to flooding and erosion.
Village officials disagree with the Corps' findings and told us that
the alternative site recommended by the Corps is unacceptable because
its distance from the coast would disrupt subsistence activities and
make supply delivery difficult and costly for the village. The village
has requested a third-party reassessment of the Corps' report, and the
Immediate Action Workgroup has recommended that a state agency lead the
review. In April 2006, the Corps estimated that the cost to relocate
Kivalina could range from $95 million to $125 million.
Village: Shaktoolik;
Status: Village officials have identified a potential relocation site
in the vicinity of Christmas Mountain, approximately 8.5 miles
northeast of the existing village. The village intends to first use
this site for emergency evacuation while it develops a relocation plan.
The Alaska Department of Transportation, the regional nonprofit
corporation Kawerak, and others are collaborating to assist the village
in determining the feasibility of building an evacuation road from the
existing village to the potential new site. The potential site needs to
be assessed to determine if it is safe and suitable for village
relocation, and a land exchange may be necessary if some, or all, of
the site includes federal lands. The Corps has not estimated the cost
to relocate Shaktoolik.
Village: Shishmaref;
Status: Most recently, village officials have been considering
relocation options through its Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation
Coalition, which was formed in 2001 to represent the community in
relocation activities. In 2002, NRCS identified 5 recommended
relocation sites on the basis of its study of 11 potential sites
identified by the Coalition. The community selected Tin Creek as its
preferred site, in the vicinity of Ear Mountain about 15 miles south of
the existing village. The Alaska Department of Transportation is
assessing the suitability of the Tin Creek site and two others,
initiating reconnaissance of a relocation road to that area, and
developing a new airport master plan. In April 2006, the Corps
estimated that the cost to relocate Shishmaref could range from $100
million to $200 million.
Source: GAO analysis of federal, state, and village information.
[End of table]
According to officials from these three villages, reaching consensus to
relocate has been difficult. None of the decisions to relocate have
been unanimous, even in the case of Newtok, with some residents
preferring alternative locations, preferring different solutions, or
preferring to remain in place. In addition, villagers fear that making
the decision to relocate could hurt their ability to address immediate
needs at the existing site, such as maintaining or replacing aging
infrastructure. For example, the Newtok Planning Group found that the
decision to relocate, combined with the imminent threat of flooding and
erosion, rendered Newtok ineligible for capital funding for
improvements to existing infrastructure, such as water and sewer, bulk
fuel tanks, and power plants, to meet needs at the current village
until the relocation was complete. Investment guidance for state
agencies discourages investments where there is an imminent
environmental threat, but also gives priority to the infrastructure
needs of existing communities over new communities, creating a
reluctance both to invest in a threatened community as well as to
invest in a future village site. Officials in Kivalina, Shaktoolik, and
Shishmaref also told us that they believed that the decision to
relocate had caused federal and state agencies to lower their villages'
priority for funding of needed infrastructure projects in the existing
village or has caused delays in ongoing projects. The Immediate Action
Workgroup has recommended changes to state investment guidelines to
address these issues.
While relocation sites are being identified and evaluated, protection
projects to prevent further flooding and erosion are also under way for
Kivalina and Shishmaref. However, some officials fear such actions
could slow the momentum toward relocating by creating a false sense of
safety at the existing villages. In 2008, Corps contractors constructed
400 feet of a planned 2,000-foot seawall in Kivalina, and constructed
625 feet of a planned 1,900-foot seawall in Shishmaref (see figure 7).
According to federal and state officials, these seawalls could protect
the villages for at least 15 years, and up to 25 years if properly
maintained. However, DCCED officials told us that they are concerned
that such protective measures may reduce the urgency among village
leaders to make relocation decisions and may prolong their stay in
perilous conditions. Officials from Shishmaref agreed and told us that
any work done to protect the existing village could prolong the
relocation effort by reducing the urgency to move, and they are
concerned that the move will only become more costly and difficult to
fund the longer they wait. However, officials from both villages told
us that they are committed to moving expeditiously to relocate once new
sites are selected.
Figure 7: Protection Projects for the Villages of Kivalina and
Shishmaref, Alaska, Summer 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: two photographs]
Photograph cations:
* Using rocks for Kivalina's seawall;
* Shishmaref seawall construction.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
On the basis of the recommendations of the Immediate Action Workgroup,
state agencies are taking additional actions to prepare villages for
disasters while accelerating the relocation process. The Alaska
Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management has taken the
lead in implementing the workgroup's recommendation that a suite of
emergency plans, training, and drills be developed for 6 villages--the
4 villages likely to relocate all at once as well as the villages of
Koyukuk and Unalakleet. State contractors are first helping the
villages to produce hazard assessments and mitigation plans, which will
allow them to qualify for FEMA hazard mitigation program funds,
followed by emergency operations and evacuation plans. The plans,
training, and drills are scheduled for completion by the end of 2009.
In addition, to implement the workgroup's recommendation for relocation
planning, DCCED is administering the Alaska Climate Change Impact
Mitigation Program. This program may award grants of up to $150,000 to
4 of the 6 villages and grants of up to $50,000 to other communities
for relocation planning--for example, to hire professional consultants
to assist them.
Eight Other Villages Are Gradually Migrating to New Locations Over Time
or Are Considering Options for Doing So:
Eight of the threatened villages are gradually migrating to a new
location over time or considering doing so, although the extent of
progress among the villages varies. Four villages--Allakaket, Huslia,
Nulato, and Teller--have moved existing structures or have built new
structures in nearby elevated sites away from the flooding and erosion
threat (see table 6).
Table 6: Status of 4 Alaska Native Villages That Have Gradually Moved
or Built Structures on Nearby Elevated Sites:
Village: Allakaket;
Status: Following the 1994 flood disaster, Allakaket developed a
comprehensive plan with the assistance of federal and state agencies
for gradually relocating the village to a nearby elevated site.
Allakaket relocated 15 newer HUD homes to the site immediately after
the disaster, and has since added a second subdivision of HUD homes.
Officials plan to gradually migrate the entire village to the elevated
site by building all new homes and infrastructure there, and are
currently seeking grant funds for a new health clinic. Meanwhile, the
school and many homes--including deteriorating temporary dwellings
built for the displaced villagers-- remain within the floodplain, and
village infrastructure is situated between the old site and the new
site.
Village: Huslia;
Status: Villagers are addressing flooding and erosion by moving or
replacing individual structures away from the erosion threat as it
approaches. According to a village official, Huslia obtained funding
from the state legislature to move infrastructure, such as the power
plant and fuel depot, away from the river; however, sewer and water
pipes are now being exposed and infrastructure, such the water main, is
endangered by the encroaching erosion. Individuals are making decisions
to abandon existing homes and build new homes away from the threatened
area, or are moving existing homes, depending on their individual
circumstances.
Village: Nulato;
Status: The village established a new site after flooding in the 1980s,
and the village has since been migrating to that location. However,
some structures, including the school and homes as well as
infrastructure, such as the fuel depot and well head, remain in the
floodplain and are susceptible to recurrent flooding. The village
intends to eventually consolidate all of the community in the new site
but does not have a formal plan for doing so.
Village: Teller;
Status: New homes are being built at a higher elevation site
approximately 2 miles away from the existing village. According to a
village official, the site is currently composed of 33 homes that have
power but no water or sewer service. While there is no formal
relocation plan in place, the official stated that many villagers would
likely relocate if they knew how to obtain the funding and assistance
to do so.
Source: GAO analysis of federal, state, and village information.
[End of table]
Four other villages--Golovin, Hughes, Koyukuk, and Unalakleet--have
identified readily accessible elevated sites, and are in the process of
identifying options for establishing infrastructure in these sites to
support and encourage gradual relocation (see table 7).
Table 7: Status of 4 Alaska Native Villages That Are Considering
Options for Gradually Relocating to Nearby Elevated Sites:
Village: Golovin;
Status: Villagers have access to elevated land nearby, but there is
currently no infrastructure in that location. Golovin's lead official
for addressing flooding and erosion stated that the first priority is
to protect the relatively new infrastructure that is within the
floodplain, but cannot be relocated. In the meantime, community
planners agree that future infrastructure and homes should be built
outside of the floodplain, resulting in a gradual migration out of the
threatened area.
Village: Hughes;
Status: Like Allakaket, Hughes developed a comprehensive plan with the
assistance of federal and state agencies for gradually relocating after
the flood disaster of 1994. A village official stated that higher land
is accessible by road nearby, but because of the lack of
infrastructure, few homes have been built there and most village
structures remain in the floodplain area. The village plans to
gradually migrate to the higher land by building new structures outside
of the floodplain, but lacks funding to relocate existing homes and
infrastructure.
Village: Koyukuk;
Status: The Corps is collaborating with the village to assess
relocation options, including staying in place, relocating all at once,
or relocating over time. According to the officials, the rights to a
potential relocation site on a high ridge overlooking the river could
be obtained from the regional Native Corporation, and an access road to
the ridge is scheduled for improvement by the Alaska Department of
Transportation in 2009.
Village: Unalakleet;
Status: The village has rights to land on a nearby hillside and access
via an evacuation road that was elevated by the Alaska Department of
Transportation in 2007. Village leaders estimate that it would cost
$8.8 million to develop a 37-home subdivision with water, sewer,
streets, and prepared home sites that could eventually expand to
include 300 homes. They do not have funding for development, and until
infrastructure is in place, there is little incentive for people to
relocate. In the meantime, the Corps, Alaska Department of
Transportation, and Kawarek are each planning projects to reinforce an
existing seawall and provide new protection to vulnerable areas of the
shoreline for the existing village site.
Source: GAO analysis of federal, state, and village information.
[End of table]
Lacking a Lead Federal Entity to Prioritize and Coordinate Assistance,
Individual Agency Efforts May Not Adequately Address the Growing Threat
to Relocating Villages:
In the absence of a lead entity, federal agencies individually
prioritize assistance to villages on the basis of their programs'
criteria, which do not necessarily ensure that the villages in the
greatest peril get the highest priority for assistance. The lack of a
lead federal entity has impeded village relocation efforts, including
the fulfillment of the environmental analysis requirements under NEPA.
Federal Agencies Use a Variety of Criteria to Provide Relocation
Assistance, Which May Not Ensure That Villages in the Greatest Peril
Get the Highest Priority:
Federal agencies generally prioritize assistance to relocating villages
collaboratively with state agencies and villages on the basis of the
applicable criteria for the programs they administer. Some examples of
the criteria federal agencies use include the following:
* Congressional direction: In section 117 of the fiscal year 2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Corps was authorized to address
storm damage and erosion issues in Alaska communities at full federal
expense. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, a congressional committee
referred to this authority and directed appropriations to certain
specific villages for Alaska coastal erosion projects. Although section
117 was repealed in March 2009, a congressional committee directed
$3.328 million to the same 9 villages covered in our 2003 report for
Alaska coastal erosion projects in fiscal year 2009.
* Cost-sharing: Several agencies use cost-sharing to prioritize
assistance to relocating villages. The Corps' Continuing Authorities
Program generally requires villages to fund between 25 percent and 50
percent of project costs. Similarly, FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program require a cost share of 10
percent to 25 percent, and its Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and
Severe Repetitive Loss Pilot Program have a recipient matching
requirement. The NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection program also
typically requires a 25 percent cost share for the cost of emergency
measures, with certain exceptions.
* Cost-effectiveness: FEMA's mitigation grant programs require
applicants to prepare a cost-benefit analysis that includes flood
hazard information and flood history for the project area, the property
inventory, and the estimated project costs; the Corps' Continuing
Authorities Program gives priority to projects that provide benefits
greater than their estimated costs; and the NRCS Emergency Watershed
Protection program requires applicants to prepare a cost-benefit
analysis, which can include social or environmental factors--such as
protecting the subsistence lifestyle of an Alaska Native village.
* Village needs: NRCS prioritizes Emergency Watershed Protection
program funding on the basis of a damage survey to determine the
village need for assistance; FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
provides assistance only if an effective response is beyond the
capabilities of the state and the affected local governments with a
federal disaster declaration; and HUD's Imminent Threats Grants Program
prioritizes funding for housing assistance to villages with imminent
threats to health or safety.
* Village commitment: The Department of Transportation's Federal
Aviation Administration gives priority for funding a new airport to
villages that are committed to relocating once the new airport is
constructed, because it is not cost-effective to keep two airports open
simultaneously; and Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will make
every effort to accomplish a land exchange--a time-consuming and costly
activity--for those villages located within refuge boundaries that need
to relocate.[Footnote 32]
Although state agencies and villages have been able to obtain federal
assistance for some projects in relocating villages under these
criteria, assistance may not necessarily go to the highest priority
villages. For example, as we reported in 2003, villages have difficulty
in meeting the cost-sharing criteria for federal agency protection or
relocation projects. To help the most threatened villages overcome this
problem, the state of Alaska appropriated funds to augment federal
erosion control and mitigation project capital costs by 35 percent--as
suggested by the Corps--to ensure that federal funds would be allocated
to Alaska. As a result, even though the Corps had the authority under
section 117 to conduct the projects at full federal cost, the state
designated most of its fiscal year 2009 $12.6 million erosion control
appropriation to serve as a nonfederal cost share for the Corps' Alaska
coastal erosion projects in 5 villages. However, the state could not
use such leverage to assist Shaktoolik--1 of the 6 top priority
villages identified by the Immediate Action Workgroup in 2008--because
it was not among the 9 villages eligible for assistance under the
program. In addition, as discussed in our 2003 report, even the most
imminently threatened Alaska Native villages have difficulty in
qualifying under cost-effectiveness criteria because the value of their
infrastructure is usually less than the cost of proposed erosion or
flood control projects. This problem is exacerbated by the high cost of
construction in remote villages where labor, equipment, and materials
have to be brought in from distant locations. Finally, few villages
meet emergency needs criteria, particularly in dealing with erosion,
which is a gradual process that does damage over time, and, as we have
previously stated in this report, some villages have found it
challenging to identify suitable relocation sites that the entire
village population can commit to accepting.
Moreover, federal agencies have not had the necessary information or
guidance that would allow them to prioritize assistance on the basis of
the level of threat, until just recently. As we have previously
discussed in this report, in March 2009, the Corps completed its Alaska
Baseline Erosion Assessment, identifying 26 communities that it
recommends for immediate and substantial action to manage erosion
issues. While the Corps plans to use the assessment to prioritize its
future assistance to villages, it does not have the authority to
require other agencies to prioritize assistance on the basis of its
assessment. Furthermore, there is no federal lead agency for relocating
villages with the authority to provide overall guidance and
coordination in prioritizing assistance to the most threatened
villages.
The Lack of a Lead Federal Entity Has Become an Impediment to Village
Relocation Efforts:
Since our 2003 report, no lead federal entity has emerged to coordinate
and help prioritize federal assistance to relocating villages, and the
lack of a lead entity has become an impediment to village relocation
efforts. For example, although Newtok has made significant relocation
progress, in October 2007, the Newtok Planning Group identified key
challenges to further progress, with several directly related to the
need for a lead federal--and state--agency. First, there was no
designated lead agency for state or federal efforts to coordinate and
leverage relocation assistance, which the group considers essential to
the orderly and efficient use of resources between agencies. Second,
lacking lead agencies with a mandate for relocating villages, there was
no relocation strategy to guide and define the roles of participants in
the process. Third, lacking a dedicated funding source, relocation
efforts were limited to a patchwork of agency funding and grants, which
was time-consuming and difficult to coordinate, and not available on an
expedited basis to address critical needs at both the existing and new
sites. While these challenges were specific to Newtok's relocation
experience, the Newtok Planning Group asserted that these challenges
would be applicable to other village relocation efforts.
Moreover, a key issue for Newtok that directly related to the lack of a
lead federal agency is that further progress in the village relocation
effort is dependent on pending projects undergoing NEPA analysis. The
Newtok Planning Group reported that the responsibility for fulfilling
NEPA requirements is uncertain without a lead federal agency,
presenting a significant challenge to the expeditious planning and
development of the new community. In our discussions with agency
officials involved in or potentially involved in village relocation
efforts, some said that there is a reluctance among federal agencies to
initiate a project at a new village site because doing so could
potentially make them responsible for taking the lead in preparing a
programmatic environmental analysis for the entire village relocation-
-not just for their specific project. Agency officials told us that
preparing a programmatic environmental analysis entails significant
cost and effort, such as coordinating with other agencies, performing a
detailed review of project alternatives, acquiring permits, and
conducting public outreach. If no agency takes lead responsibility for
a programmatic environmental analysis, it is likely that each agency
will conduct individual project environmental analyses, as the Corps
has done by completing an environmental assessment specifically for the
Newtok evacuation center. According to a Corps program manager, this
would be inefficient, repetitive, and costly.[Footnote 33] Whether
Newtok must wait for a lead federal agency to step forward or for each
agency to independently assess the environmental effects of their
projects, any delay in the relocation process increases costs because
of inflation and the inefficiency of the uncoordinated process.
Because of the concerns raised by the Newtok Planning Group regarding
the lack of federal and state lead agencies, the state designated DCCED
as the lead state coordinating agency for all village relocation
assistance in 2008. Since then, DCCED and the Immediate Action
Workgroup have been instrumental in coordinating and prioritizing
activities at the state level and in preparing a budget justification
for the state legislature that resulted in an appropriation of $12.6
million for fiscal year 2009, and in a recommendation for nearly $9
million in appropriations for 2010. Furthermore, to ensure continued
success in leveraging the state's resources through coordination and
collaboration with other state and federal agencies--as well as
regional and community organizations--the Immediate Action Workgroup
recommended in March 2009 that its ad hoc collaborative approach should
be replaced with a formal, standing committee or workgroup embedded in
the state's administrative operations.
Confirming the concerns of the Newtok Planning Group, federal, state,
and village officials with whom we spoke told us that a lead federal
entity is needed to coordinate village relocation efforts. Federal
officials identified an overall lack of leadership and the absence of
an entity with the authority to take charge and direct the actions of
other agencies as key challenges to the relocation of threatened
villages. According to state officials, the lack of a single federal
agency with a budget and mission dedicated to assisting villages has
forced the state and villages to take the less efficient, time-
consuming approach of cobbling together assistance from numerous
federal agencies with varying missions. Some village leaders told us
that providing them with assistance does not appear to be a priority
for federal agencies, and that there is no clear leader among the
agencies for them to go to for relocation assistance. To address these
concerns, a lead federal entity could identify the most threatened
villages, prioritize federal investments and provide guidance to other
agencies, assist Congress on new legislation or revisions to existing
law that could benefit relocating villages, and be the go-to agency to
assist and guide villages throughout the relocation process. Guidance
for the villages is important, because both the Immediate Action
Workgroup and the Newtok Planning Group found that threatened villages
may lack the capacity and resources to obtain and administer government
funding for relocation, particularly in times of crisis.
The village of Allakaket provides an example of a village that, lacking
guidance and coordinating assistance from a lead entity, has been
unable to complete its relocation, even though it has had a
comprehensive relocation plan in place for over a decade. After it was
flooded in 1994 and almost completely destroyed, 15 HUD homes were
moved out of the floodplain to a ridge south of Allakaket, but many
homes and infrastructure components were rebuilt or replaced in or near
the floodplain. In August 1995, FEMA and the Alaska Division of
Emergency Services provided a comprehensive plan to the people of
Allakaket to use as guidance for completing the relocation process over
a 20-year period. Subsequently, without a lead federal or state entity
for providing relocation assistance and lacking the internal capacity
and resources to sustain the relocation process, Allakaket has made
minimal progress over the last 14 years. Allakaket officials and
residents believe that the federal and state governments have not
fulfilled their obligations to help them relocate, and they are
concerned, for example, that 19 emergency homes for residents who had
lost their homes in the 1994 flood are now dilapidated, deteriorating,
and overcrowded, but remain in use by residents within the floodplain.
The two entities suggested to lead federal relocation efforts by those
with whom we spoke were the Corps--which has extensive involvement in
village protection projects and conducted the Alaska Baseline Erosion
Assessment--and the Denali Commission--the existing federal-state body
for coordinating assistance to rural Alaska. However, Corps officials
commented that they should not necessarily be the lead in every
relocation case because there are a number of other federal agencies
with key responsibilities for important relocation assistance, such as
providing housing, transportation, health, and education services.
Denali Commission officials stated that significant staffing and
funding increases would be needed for the commission to take the lead
role for village relocations in addition to its existing
responsibilities. Alternatively, a new entity could be formed to lead,
oversee, and coordinate village relocation efforts.
Conclusions:
Congress and the state of Alaska have made a commitment to assist
Alaska Native villages that are threatened by flooding and erosion.
While some progress has been made to determine the scope of the problem
since our 2003 report, the full extent of the threat to villages
remains unknown. Because the Corps' Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment
did not consider flooding, the status of the threat to many villages
cannot be properly taken into account by federal and state officials
when planning and prioritizing assistance to villages, thereby creating
the potential that villages may not receive the assistance they need
due to a lack of complete information for decision makers.
Because of Alaska's unique structure of organized boroughs and an
unorganized borough, unincorporated Native villages in the unorganized
borough do not qualify for federal housing funds from HUD's Community
Development Block Grant program. The disqualification of the villages
in this borough is not because they lack the need for these funds, but
because there is no local government that is a political subdivision of
the state to receive the funds. The exclusion of Native villages from
this existing federal program contributes to the difficulties they face
in obtaining resources for relocation.
Even in the cases where the imminent flooding or erosion threat is
clear, the efforts of federal and state programs to provide assistance,
thus far, have resulted in little progress toward relocation.
Collaborating together, the federal government and the state government
have an opportunity to address these threats in a thoughtful,
reasonable, and environmentally sound manner. As time passes without
significant progress being made on these village relocations, the
potential for disaster increases, as does the ultimate cost of moving
the villages out of harm's way. The paradox is that funding would be
made available to respond to a disaster, but no comprehensive program
exists to proactively assist these villages to prevent an impending
disaster. Responding to these disasters in an emergency situation may
result in rushed decisions and solutions that are not optimal and less
environmentally sound. Moreover, the lack of a lead federal entity for
providing relocation assistance has emerged as an impediment to village
relocation efforts. A lead entity would be able to ensure compliance
with NEPA and to ensure the efficient development and setting of
priorities across agencies and better coordination among all levels of
government.
Matters for Congressional Consideration:
To obtain a more complete understanding of the flooding threats facing
Alaska Native villages, Congress may want to consider directing the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct an Alaska Baseline Flooding
Assessment to augment the Corps' recently completed Alaska Baseline
Erosion Assessment.
To provide the state of Alaska with additional flexibility in its
distribution of HUD Community Development Block Grant funds, Congress
may want to consider amending the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974 to acknowledge the unique governmental structure in the state
of Alaska and enable the 64 unincorporated Alaska Native villages in
Alaska's unorganized borough to be eligible grant recipients for HUD
Community Development Block Grant funds distributed through the state.
Determining the means and extent of federal assistance to relocating
Alaska Native villages is a policy decision that rests with Congress.
We have provided information indicating that establishing a lead
federal entity for prioritizing and guiding federal assistance to
relocating villages may have benefits to the villages, to federal and
state agencies, and to Congress. In its deliberations regarding
assistance to relocating villages, Congress may want to consider
designating, or creating, a lead federal entity that could work in
conjunction with the lead state agency to coordinate and oversee
village relocation efforts.
Agency Comments:
We provided a copy of our draft report to the Departments of
Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security,
Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, and Transportation; the
Denali Commission; and the state of Alaska. In its written response,
the Denali Commission agreed with each of our matters for Congressional
consideration and stated that it is prepared to assist in future
relocation and erosion efforts to the extent that Congress deems
appropriate and necessary. The Denali Commission's comments are
presented in appendix II. The Departments of Defense, Housing and Urban
Development, and the Interior provided technical comments, which we
incorporated into the report as appropriate. The Departments of
Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and
Transportation, and the state of Alaska did not provide comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human
Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the
Interior, and Transportation; the federal and state cochairs of the
Denali Commission; the Governor of the state of Alaska; and other
interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Additional Key Federal Programs That Can Address Flooding
and Erosion Problems:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps):
Agency/Program: Corps/Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946;
Description: Provides emergency streambank and shoreline erosion
protection for public facilities.
Agency/Program: Corps/Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948;
Description: Authorizes flood control projects.
Agency/Program: Corps/Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954;
Description: Authorizes flood control activities.
Agency/Program: Corps/Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962;
Description: Protects shores of publicly owned property from hurricane
and storm damage.
Agency/Program: Corps/Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968;
Description: Mitigates shoreline erosion damage caused by federal
navigation projects.
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS):
Agency/Program: NRCS/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.
Agency/Program: NRCS/Emergency Watershed Protection Program;
Description: Provides assistance where there is some imminent threat--
usually from erosion caused by river flooding.
Agency/Program: NRCS/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.
Other:
Agency/Program: Department of Commerce's Economic Development
Administration/Economic Adjustment Program;
Description: Provides assistance to protect and develop the economies
of communities. This assistance could involve building erosion or flood
control structures to protect village commercial structures, such as
canneries.
Agency/Program: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)/
Community Development Block Grants Program;
Description: Provides grants to Indian tribes and Alaska Native
villages to develop economic opportunities and build decent housing for
low-and moderate-income residents.
Agency/Program: HUD/Native American Housing Assistance Self-
Determination Act of 1996;
Description: Provides grants and technical assistance to Indian tribes
and Alaska Native villages to develop affordable housing for low-income
families. The funds may also be used to move homes that are threatened
by flooding and erosion.
Agency/Program: HUD/Imminent Threats Grants Program;
Description: Provides funding to alleviate or remove imminent threats
to health or safety for nonrecurring events.
Agency/Program: Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs/
Road Maintenance Program;
Description: Provides funding for maintaining and repairing roads,
culverts, and airstrips to provide a foundation for economic
development.
Agency/Program: Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs/
Housing Improvement Program;
Description: Provides grants and technical assistance to replace
substandard housing, including housing that is threatened, damaged, or
lost due to erosion or flooding.
Agency/Program: Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation
Administration/Alaska Region Airports Division;
Description: Provides funding to improve airport infrastructure--
including those threatened by flooding and erosion. May 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 agency design standards. However,
the villages first need to be relocated before the new airport is
built.
Agency/Program: Department of Transportation/Federal Highway
Administration;
Description: Provides funding through the state of Alaska for roads,
pedestrian facilities, and snowmobile trails. Funding may be available
to assist villages with improving or repairing roads/boardwalks.
Source: GAO, 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).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Denali Commission:
Denali Commission:
510 L Street, Suite 410:
Anchorage, AK 99501:
907.271.1414 tel:
907.271.1415 fax:
888.480.4321 toll free:
[hyperlink, http://www.denali.gov]
April 30, 2009:
Anu Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW. Room 2T31:
Washington. DC 20548:
Re: GAO-09-551, Relocation of Alaska Native Villages:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
This letter is written in response to GAO report 09-551: Relocation of
Alaska Native Villages, and is submitted as formal public comment on
behalf of the Denali Commission (Commission) an independent federal
agency in Alaska.
The Commission concurs with each of the GAO's highlighted
recommendations to Congress which include:
* Directing the Corps to conduct flood assessment in Alaska to augment
the Corps' recently completed erosion assessment;
* Amending the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to allow
64 additional villages to be eligible recipients; and;
* Designating or creating a lead federal entity that could work in
conjunction with the lead state agency to coordinate and oversee
village relocation efforts.
Further, the Commission concurs with GAO's assertions that a lack of a
lead federal entity has resulted in individual prioritization and
relocation efforts which have not resulted in assuring that villages in
the greatest peril receive the highest priority for relocation and
flooding.
The Commission has a well-documented ten year history in infrastructure
development and governmental coordination in Alaska. We are prepared to
assist in future relocation and erosion efforts to the degree deemed
appropriate and necessary by Congress. In the interim, the Commission
will continue to evaluate and carefully consider facility and
infrastructure requests that are forwarded to the agency from
communities identified by the GAO study.
Respectfully,
Signed by:
George Cannelos:
Federal Co-Chair:
cc: Denali Commissioners:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Assistant
Director; Allen T. Chan; Brad C. Dobbins; Alison D. O'Neill; and
Jeanette M. Soares made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and
Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-142] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12,
2003). There are 225 federally recognized Native entities within the
state of Alaska eligible to receive services from the Department of the
Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs. For a complete list of all of the
562 entities recognized by the federal government, in the continental
United States and in the state of Alaska, see 73 Fed. Reg. 18553 (Apr.
4, 2008). For the purposes of this report, as well as our 2003 report,
we define 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 Bureau of Indian Affairs. On the basis of these criteria, we
identified 213 Alaska Native villages. We reported that 184 of the 213
villages, or 86 percent, were affected to some extent by flooding and
erosion.
[2] The Conference Report for the fiscal year 2003 Military
Construction Appropriations Act directed that we include at least 6
villages in our review--Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Point Hope,
and Unalakleet. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-731, at 15 (2002). We added
3 additional villages--Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref--on the basis of
discussions with congressional staff and with federal and Alaska state
officials familiar with flooding and erosion problems.
[3] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-792, at 858 (2004).
[4] The State and Federal Response to Storm Damage and Erosion in
Alaska's Coastal Villages Before the Senate Ad Hoc Subcomm. on Disaster
Recovery of the Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Governmental Affairs, 110th
Cong. (2007).
[5] The U.S. Census Bureau defines this category as American Indian and
Alaska Native.
[6] Other Alaska Native groups include the Siberian Yupik of St.
Lawrence Island and the Tsimishian of southeast Alaska.
[7] In addition, village and regional corporations were established
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act as a vehicle for
distributing land and monetary benefits to Alaska Natives to provide a
fair and just settlement of aboriginal land claims in Alaska. See Pub.
L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971), codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§
1601-1629h.
[8] The Denali Commission was established in 1998 and is charged with
addressing the crucial needs of rural Alaska communities, particularly
isolated Alaska Native villages. See Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. C, Title
III, 112 Stat. 2681-637 (1998), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3121 Note. The
membership of the commission consists of federal and state cochairs and
a five-member panel from statewide organizations. The mission of the
commission is to partner with tribal, federal, state, and local
governments to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government
services; build and ensure the operation and maintenance of Alaska's
basic infrastructure; and develop a well-trained labor force.
[9] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-10, at 807 (2003); S. Rep. No. 107-220, at
23-24 (2002). See also Pub. L. No. 108-137, § 112, 117 Stat. 1835-36
(2003) (requiring specific appropriated funds to be used to provide
technical assistance, at full federal expense, to Alaska communities to
address the serious impacts of coastal erosion).
[10] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-792, at 858 (2004).
[11] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div.
C, Title I, § 117, 118 Stat. 2944-45 (2004).
[12] Pub. L. No. 111-8, Div. C, Title I, § 117, 123 Stat. 524 (2009).
[13] The State and Federal Response to Storm Damage and Erosion in
Alaska's Coastal Villages Before the Senate Ad Hoc Subcomm. on Disaster
Recovery of the Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Governmental Affairs, 110th
Cong. (2007).
[14] Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§
4321-4370f.
[15] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Baseline Erosion Assessment,
Study Findings and Technical Report (Alaska District: March 2009). Of
the 178 Alaska communities identified in the Corps' report, 141 are
Alaska Native villages and 124 of them were among the 184 Alaska Native
villages that we identified in our 2003 report as being affected, at
least to some degree, by erosion or flooding.
[16] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-792, at 858 (2004).
[17] In addition to identifying 26 priority action communities with
serious erosion issues that warrant immediate and substantial federal,
state, or other intervention, the assessment identified 69 communities
that need to monitor erosion but do not need immediate action and
identified 83 communities that did not report any serious erosion
problems.
[18] The 33 Alaska Native villages with a FEMA-approved disaster
mitigation plan are Akhiok, Alakanuk, Anaktuvuk Pass, Aniak, Barrow,
Bethel, Cordova, Dillingham, Emmonak, Golovin, Hooper Bay, Kaktovik,
Kivalina, Kotlik, Kotzebue, Koyukuk, Larsen Bay, McGrath, Newtok, Nome,
Nuiqsut, Nunam Iqua, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, Petersburg, Point Lay, Port
Lions, Red Devil, St. Paul, Sleetmute, Unalakleet, Wainwright, and
Yakutat. The 12 italicized villages are among the 31 imminently
threatened villages identified in this report.
[19] The Stafford Act establishes the process for states to request a
presidential disaster declaration. See Pub. L. No. 93-288 (1974),
codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206. The Stafford Act
requires the governor of the affected state to request a declaration by
the President. In this request, the governor must affirm that the
situation is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is
beyond the capabilities of the state and the affected local
governments, and that federal assistance is necessary. See 42 U.S.C. §
5170. FEMA is responsible for recommending to the President whether to
declare a disaster and trigger the availability of funds as provided
for in the Stafford Act. See 44 C.F.R. § 206.36. According to FEMA
officials, it is usual for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program eligibility
to be granted statewide, not just in affected areas.
[20] The National Flood Insurance Program was established in the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide policyholders with some
insurance coverage for flood damage, as an alternative to disaster
assistance, and to try to reduce the escalating costs of repairing
flood damage. To participate in the National Flood Insurance Program,
communities agree to enforce regulations for land use and new
construction in high-risk flood zones. The National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968, as amended, is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4001-4129.
[21] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div.
C, Title I, § 117, 118 Stat. 2944-45 (2004).
[22] Pub. L. No. 111-8, Div. C, Title I, § 117, 123 Stat. 524 (2009).
[23] S. Rep. No. 109-84, at 41 (2005).
[24] S. Rep. No. 109-274, at 52 (2006) ($5 million for Alaska coastal
erosion projects in 6 eligible villages--Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok,
Point Hope, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet); S. Rep. No. 110-127 at 52
(2007) ($5 million for Alaska coastal erosion projects in 9 eligible
villages--Barrow, Bethel, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Koyukuk, Newtok, Point
Hope, Shishmaref, and Unalakleet).
[25] 70 Fed. Reg. 16921, 16929 (Apr. 4, 2005).
[26] Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-383,
88 Stat. 633 (1974) (codified in scattered sections of Titles 12 and 42
of the U.S. Code).
[27] 42 U.S.C. § 5302(a)(1).
[28] Pub. L. No. 108-129, 117 Stat. 1358 (2003).
[29] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Village Erosion Technical
Assistance Program: An Examination of Erosion Issues in the Communities
of Bethel, Dillingham, Kaktovik, Kivalina, Newtok, Shishmaref, and
Unalakleet (Alaska District: April 2006).
[30] State participants include DCCED and the Alaska Departments of
Environmental Conservation, Transportation and Public Facilities,
Military and Veteran Affairs, Natural Resources, Education and Early
Development, and Health and Social Services as well as the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority and the Governor's Office.
Federal participants include HUD and the Departments of Commerce,
Agriculture, the Interior, and Transportation as well as the Corps, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Denali Commission, and Senator
Murkowski's office.
[31] The Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc., is a private,
statewide, nonprofit organization working to improve the quality of
life for low-income Alaskans. Established in 1965 and governed by a 24-
member Board of Directors representing every region of the state, the
Rural Alaska Community Action Program provides resources and services
to enhance child and family development, improve housing, save energy,
develop leadership, promote environmental conservation, prevent
substance abuse, and foster independent living.
[32] According to an agency official, 96 Alaska Native villages are
located within the exterior boundaries of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service-managed National Wildlife Refuges, potentially creating a
significant administrative burden for the agency if more villages
decide to relocate. In some cases, the village corporations established
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act may have land that may be
suitable for relocation purposes; however, in other cases, a land
exchange with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be necessary. For
example, Newtok, which is located within the Yukon Delta National
Wildlife Refuge, did a land exchange with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to obtain its new village site.
[33] The Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations authorize,
but do not require, agencies to cover general matters in broader
environmental impact statements, with subsequent site-specific tiered
statements or environmental analyses that incorporate these general
discussions while concentrating on the issues specific to the project.
See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.28.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
