Nome Area Tribes including the Nome Eskimo

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Community, King Island Native Community, Native

Village of Council, and the Village of Solomon

2025 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Dates Active: February 20, 2025 - February 19, 2030

Prepared by:

Nome Eskimo Community

King Island Native Community

Native Village of Council

Village of Solomon

Kawerak, Inc.

Fairweather Science, LLC

This document was prepared under a grant from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to Kawerak, Inc., and

managed by the Emergency Preparedness Department of Kawerak, Inc.

Front Cover Photos

Top Left: Nome

Top Right: King Island

Bottom Left: Council

Bottom Right: Solomon

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1

Community Profile .......................................................................................................................... 2

Vulnerability Snapshots ................................................................................................................. 10

Critical Facilities ............................................................................................................................ 15

Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) ...................................................................................................... 24

FEMA APPROVAL LETTER ................................................................................................................... I

PLAN DISTRIBUTION LIST .................................................................................................................. II

RECORD OF CHANGES ......................................................................................................................... II

PLAN INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................... 1-1

1.1

Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2

Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Layout Description ................................... 1-1

PLANNING PROCESS .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1

Overview .......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2

Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ................................................................................... 2-3

2.3

Opportunities for Collaborators and Other Interested Parties to Participate.................... 2-4

2.4

Public Involvement and Tribal Definition of Membership .............................................. 2-6

2.5

Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans, Studies, and Reports................................. 2-7

2.6

Other Ongoing Tribal Efforts........................................................................................... 2-9

RISK ASSESSMENT/HAZARD ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 3-1

3.1

Overview .......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2

Hazard Identification and Screening ................................................................................ 3-1

3.2.1

3.3

Hazard Profiles ................................................................................................................ 3-6

3.3.0

3.3.1

3.3.2

3.3.3

3.3.4

3.3.5

3.3.6

3.3.7

3.3.8

3.3.9

3.4

Hazards Not Profiled in this MJHMP ................................................................. 3-4

Climate Change................................................................................................... 3-7

Earthquake ........................................................................................................ 3-10

Severe Weather ................................................................................................. 3-21

Wildland/Tundra Fire ....................................................................................... 3-56

Changes in the Cryosphere ............................................................................... 3-70

Radon ................................................................................................................ 3-82

Flood ................................................................................................................. 3-85

Tsunami .......................................................................................................... 3-110

Erosion ............................................................................................................ 3-115

Landslide......................................................................................................... 3-124

Summary of Vulnerability ........................................................................................... 3-128

3.4.1

3.4.2

Overview......................................................................................................... 3-128

Population and Building Stock ....................................................................... 3-131

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

3.4.3

3.4.4

3.4.5

3.4.6

3.4.7

3.4.8

3.4.9

MITIGATION STRATEGY ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1

Capability Assessment ..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1

Vulnerability Assessment Methodology ......................................................... 3-132

Data Limitations ............................................................................................. 3-133

Asset Inventory ............................................................................................... 3-133

Vulnerability Exposure Analysis .................................................................... 3-148

Land Use ......................................................................................................... 3-153

Future Development ....................................................................................... 3-159

Subsistence and Food Sovereignty in Rural Alaska ....................................... 3-160

Ability to Expand and Improve Resources ......................................................... 4-5

4.2

NFIP Participation and Repetitive Loss ........................................................................... 4-5

4.3

Mitigation Goals .............................................................................................................. 4-6

4.4

Mitigation Actions ........................................................................................................... 4-2

4.5

Evaluating and Prioritizing Mitigation Actions ............................................................... 4-2

4.6

Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) ........................................................................................ 4-3

4.7

Monitoring Mitigation Goals and Actions ..................................................................... 4-10

PLAN MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1

Planning Team MJHMP Maintenance Commitment ....................................................... 5-1

5.2

Continued Public Involvement ........................................................................................ 5-1

5.3

Implementing, Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the MJHMP ............................... 5-1

5.4

Plan Integration ................................................................................................................ 5-4

PLAN UPDATE .......................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1

Changes in Development in Hazard-Prone Areas............................................................ 6-1

6.2

Changes in Priorities in Mitigation Efforts ...................................................................... 6-1

PLAN ADOPTION ..................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1

Tribal Assurances ............................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2

Formal Adoption .............................................................................................................. 7-1

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 8-1

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 9-1

Appendix A – Federal Funding Resources for Mitigation Projects .............................................. 9-1

Appendix B – FEMA Review Tool, Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plans........................................... 9-4

Appendix C – Adoption Resolutions ............................................................................................ 9-5

Appendix D – Public Outreach Activities..................................................................................... 9-6

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1- Map of the Planning Area ............................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2- Historical Population of Nome ...................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3- Historical Population of King Island ............................................................................................. 7

Figure 4- Historical Population of Council ................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5- Historical Population of Solomon ................................................................................................. 8

Figure 6- Statewide Volcanic Ash Hazard Areas ...................................................................................... 3-5

Figure 7- Avalanche Hazard Areas in Alaska ............................................................................................ 3-6

Figure 8- Annual Relative Sea Level in Nome and Future Projections (1960-2100) ................................ 3-9

Figure 9- How Climate Change is Affecting the Timing of Traditional Subsistence Activities ............. 3-10

Figure 10- Types of Seismic Waves ........................................................................................................ 3-11

Figure 11- Historical Alaska Earthquakes Greater than M5.5, 1900 - February 6, 2024 ........................ 3-14

Figure 12- Map of Alaska’s Recorded Earthquakes in 2023 ................................................................... 3-15

Figure 13- Historical Earthquakes M4.0 and Greater near Nome ........................................................... 3-16

Figure 14- Alaska’s Faults and Folds ...................................................................................................... 3-17

Figure 15- Faults and Folds Near Nome .................................................................................................. 3-18

Figure 16- Nome Area Earthquake Probability/Risk ............................................................................... 3-20

Figure 17- Historical Drought Monitor Conditions for Alaska (2000-January 2024) ............................. 3-25

Figure 18- Historical Drought Monitor Conditions for Nome Census Area (2000-January 2024) ......... 3-26

Figure 19- Nome Average Annual Temperature 1925-2023 ................................................................... 3-36

Figure 20- Alaska Average Annual Temperature 1991-2020 .................................................................. 3-37

Figure 21- Alaska Average Annual Precipitation 1991-2020 .................................................................. 3-37

Figure 22- Heavy Snow in Nome (January 2024) ................................................................................... 3-38

Figure 23- Snow Drift in Nome (2021) ................................................................................................... 3-39

Figure 24- Snow from Blizzard Blocking Doorway in Nome (2021)...................................................... 3-39

Figure 25- Annual Wind Speed/Direction Distribution in Nome, 1980-2014 ......................................... 3-40

Figure 26- Alaska’s Predicted Temperature Changes Through 2099 ...................................................... 3-44

Figure 27- Percent Change in Annual Average Precipitation Statewide (1973-2022) ............................ 3-46

Figure 28- Historical and Projected Temperatures in Nome ................................................................... 3-47

Figure 29- Historical and Projected Precipitation Amounts in Nome ..................................................... 3-47

Figure 30- Historical and Projected Temperatures in King Island .......................................................... 3-48

Figure 31- Historical and Projected Precipitation Amounts in King Island ............................................ 3-48

Figure 32- Historical and Projected Temperatures in Council................................................................. 3-49

Figure 33- Historical and Projected Precipitation Amounts in Council................................................... 3-49

Figure 34- Historical and Projected Temperatures in Solomon ............................................................... 3-50

Figure 35- Historical and Projected Precipitation Amounts in Solomon ................................................. 3-50

Figure 36- Historical and Future Modeled Wind Event Frequency, Nome (1980-2099) ........................ 3-51

Figure 37- Historical and Projected Length of Growing Season in Nome .............................................. 3-53

Figure 38- Historical and Projected Length of Growing Season in King Island ..................................... 3-53

Figure 39- Historical and Projected Length of Growing Season in Council ........................................... 3-54

Figure 40- Historical and Projected Length of Growing Season in Solomon .......................................... 3-54

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

Figure 41- Historical Wildfire Perimeters near Nome (1940-2022) ........................................................ 3-60

Figure 42- Vegetation/Landcover Class and Ecoregions of Alaska ........................................................ 3-62

Figure 43- Statewide Wildfire Hazard Areas ........................................................................................... 3-63

Figure 44- Projected Changes in Vegetation in Nome (1950-2099)........................................................ 3-65

Figure 45- Projected Changes in Vegetation in Council (1950-2099) ..................................................... 3-66

Figure 46- Projected Changes in Vegetation in Solomon (1950-2099) ................................................... 3-67

Figure 47- Historical and Projected Flammability Conditions in Nome (1950-2099)............................. 3-68

Figure 48- Historical and Projected Flammability Conditions in Council (1950-2099).......................... 3-69

Figure 49- Historical and Projected Flammability Conditions in Solomon (1950-2099) ........................ 3-69

Figure 50- Components of the Cryosphere .............................................................................................. 3-70

Figure 51- Permafrost Characteristics of Alaska ..................................................................................... 3-71

Figure 52- Statewide Permafrost Hazard Areas ....................................................................................... 3-72

Figure 53- Statewide Thawing Permafrost Threat Risk Map .................................................................. 3-73

Figure 54- Nome Permafrost Profile/Risk ............................................................................................... 3-74

Figure 55- Solomon Cemetery ................................................................................................................. 3-74

Figure 56- Mean Projected Annual Ground Temperature in Nome (2021-2100).................................... 3-76

Figure 57- Mean Projected Annual Ground Temperature in Council (2021-2100) ................................. 3-77

Figure 58- Age of Arctic Sea Ice in 1985 vs. 2021.................................................................................. 3-78

Figure 59- Age of Arctic Sea Ice on March 28, 2024 .............................................................................. 3-78

Figure 60- Historical Sea Ice Concentration in Nome (1850-2021) ........................................................ 3-79

Figure 61- Nome Sea Ice Radar ............................................................................................................... 3-79

Figure 62- Bering Sea Ice Extent 2013-2018........................................................................................... 3-80

Figure 63- Bering Sea Average February Sea Ice Extent (1979-2022) ................................................... 3-80

Figure 64- Polar Bear on the Beach near Nome (June 16, 2005) ............................................................ 3-81

Figure 65- Map of Alaska's Radon Zones................................................................................................ 3-84

Figure 66- Statewide Coastal Flooding Hazard Areas ............................................................................. 3-93

Figure 67- Statewide Riverine Flooding Hazard Areas ........................................................................... 3-94

Figure 68- Nome Color-Indexed Elevation Map (1 of 3) ........................................................................ 3-95

Figure 69- Nome Color-Indexed Elevation Map (2 of 3) ........................................................................ 3-96

Figure 70- Nome Color-Indexed Elevation Map (3 of 3) ........................................................................ 3-97

Figure 71- Statewide Flooding Threat Risk Map..................................................................................... 3-98

Figure 72- Water Level in Nome During Typhoon Merbok .................................................................. 3-100

Figure 73- Damage from Typhoon Merbok to Coastal Cabins in Nome (September 2022) ................. 3-100

Figure 74- Overturned Shed in Water in Nome from Typhoon Merbok (September 2022).................. 3-101

Figure 75- Destroyed Road in Nome from Typhoon Merbok (September 2022) .................................. 3-101

Figure 76- Flooding and Erosion of Nome-Council Hwy from Typhoon Merbok (September 2022) .. 3-102

Figure 77- Flooding of Nome Airport and Facilities from Typhoon Merbok (September 2022) .......... 3-102

Figure 78- Cabin Pushed into the Snake River from Typhoon Merbok (September 2022)................... 3-103

Figure 79- Damage to Nome-Council Road from Typhoon Merbok (September 2022) ....................... 3-103

Figure 80- Estimated 50-year Surge Level in Nome ............................................................................. 3-104

Figure 81- Historical and Projected Changes in Runoff in Nome (1950-2099) .................................... 3-107

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

Figure 82- Historical and Projected Changes in Runoff in Council (1950-2099) ................................. 3-108

Figure 83- Historical and Projected Changes in Runoff in Solomon (1950-2099) ................................ 3-109

Figure 84- Cross Section of a Tsunami Propagation ............................................................................. 3-111

Figure 85- Tidal Wave in Nome, 11/02/1910 ........................................................................................ 3-112

Figure 86- National Tsunami Risk Map ................................................................................................ 3-113

Figure 87- Bathymetry of Norton Sound ............................................................................................... 3-114

Figure 88- Distinguishing Between Coastal Erosion and Scour ............................................................ 3-116

Figure 89- Woolley Lagoon (2009) ....................................................................................................... 3-119

Figure 90- Linear Extent of Erosion in Nome (2008) ............................................................................ 3-119

Figure 91- Linear Extent of Erosion in Council (2008) ......................................................................... 3-120

Figure 92- Shoreline Change in Nome (1951-2015).............................................................................. 3-121

Figure 93- Statewide Erosion Threat Risk Map..................................................................................... 3-122

Figure 94- Statewide Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas ............................................................................. 3-123

Figure 95- Historical Landslides in the Nome Area (December 2003 – 06/30/2022) ........................... 3-126

Figure 96- Landslide Hazard Areas in Alaska ....................................................................................... 3-127

Figure 97- Statewide Combined Threat Risk Map (Nome) ................................................................... 3-131

Figure 98- Map of Critical Facilities in Nome (Utilized by all of the Tribes) ....................................... 3-138

Figure 99- Map of Nome Eskimo Community’s Critical Facilities in Nome ........................................ 3-140

Figure 100- Map of King Island’s Critical Facilities in Nome .............................................................. 3-142

Figure 101- Map of King Island’s Critical Facilities on King Island .................................................... 3-142

Figure 102- Map of Council’s Critical Facilities in Nome .................................................................... 3-144

Figure 103- Map of Council’s Critical Facilities in Council ................................................................. 3-144

Figure 104- Map of Solomon’s Critical Facilities in Nome .................................................................. 3-147

Figure 105- Map of Solomon’s Critical Facilities in Solomon .............................................................. 3-147

Figure 106- Nome Land Use Map ......................................................................................................... 3-154

Figure 107- Nome Downtown Area Land Use Map .............................................................................. 3-155

Figure 108- Map of King Island ............................................................................................................ 3-156

Figure 109- Council Community Map (1980) ....................................................................................... 3-157

Figure 110- Solomon Community Map (1980) ..................................................................................... 3-158

Figure 111- HMP Update Schedule ........................................................................................................... 5-3

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1- Average Weather Data for Nome (2016-2023) .............................................................................. 5

Table 2- Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Meetings ............................................................................... 2-2

Table 3- Hazard Mitigation Planning Team .............................................................................................. 2-3

Table 4- Documents Reviewed .................................................................................................................. 2-7

Table 5- Identification and Screening of Hazards...................................................................................... 3-2

Table 6- Hazard Magnitude/Severity Criteria ............................................................................................ 3-7

Table 7- Hazard Probability of Future Events Criteria .............................................................................. 3-7

Table 8- Magnitude/Intensity/Ground-Shaking Comparisons ................................................................. 3-12

Table 9- Historical Earthquakes (M4.0 and greater within 100 miles of Nome) ..................................... 3-13

Table 10- Beaufort Scale of Wind Strength ............................................................................................. 3-22

Table 11- Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale .................................................................................... 3-23

Table 12- Classifications of Drought Conditions..................................................................................... 3-24

Table 13- Historical Severe Weather Events in the Nome Area .............................................................. 3-26

Table 14- Historical Wildfires within 100 miles of Nome (1939-2022).................................................. 3-57

Table 15- Top 10 Storm Surge Events in Nome from 1954-2004 ........................................................... 3-86

Table 16- Historic Flood Events in Nome and Council ........................................................................... 3-87

Table 17- Estimated Surge Levels in Nome Based on Flood Frequency............................................... 3-104

Table 18- Historical Tsunamis Reported in the Nome Area .................................................................. 3-111

Table 19- Nome Area Vulnerability Overview (All Tribes) .................................................................. 3-129

Table 20- King Island Historic Townsite Vulnerability Overview ........................................................ 3-129

Table 21- Council Historic Townsite Vulnerability Overview .............................................................. 3-130

Table 22- Solomon Historic Townsite Vulnerability Overview ............................................................ 3-130

Table 23- Nome Estimated Population and Building Inventory ............................................................ 3-132

Table 24- Critical Facilities in Nome That Are Utilized By All Tribes In The Area ............................ 3-134

Table 25- Nome Eskimo Community Critical Facilities in Nome ......................................................... 3-139

Table 26- King Island Native Community Critical Facilities ................................................................ 3-141

Table 27- Native Village of Council Critical Facilities ......................................................................... 3-143

Table 28- Village of Solomon Critical Facilities ................................................................................... 3-145

Table 29- Vulnerability Exposure Analysis- Nome (shared assets not Tribally owned) ....................... 3-148

Table 30- Vulnerability Exposure Analysis- Nome Eskimo Community.............................................. 3-149

Table 31- Vulnerability Exposure Analysis- King Island Native Community ...................................... 3-150

Table 32- Vulnerability Exposure Analysis- Native Village of Council ............................................... 3-151

Table 33- Vulnerability Exposure Analysis- Village of Solomon ......................................................... 3-152

Table 34- Nome Area Tribes Capability Assessment ................................................................................ 4-1

Table 35- Mitigation Goals ........................................................................................................................ 4-2

Table 36- Evaluation Criteria for Mitigation Actions ................................................................................ 4-2

Table 37- Nome Area Tribes Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) ................................................................... 4-4

Table 38- Annual Review Checklist .......................................................................................................... 5-4

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

°F

AICC

BRIC

BSRHA

CFR

DCCED

DCI

DCRA

DGGS

DHS

DHS&EM

DMA 2000

DMVA

ENSO

EPA

FEMA

FLD

GIS

HMA

HMGP

HMP

KINC

Kts

MAP

MJHMP

MLLW

MMI

mph

NCAR CCSM4

NEC

NFIP

NOAA

NPS

NRCS

NVC

NWS

PGA

RCP(s)

SHMP

SNAP

Acronyms/Abbreviations

Degrees Fahrenheit

Alaska Interagency Coordination Center

Alaska

Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities

Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority

Code Of Federal Regulations

Cryosphere

Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development

Disaster Cost Index

Division of Community and Regional Affairs

Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey

Department of Homeland Security

Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

Disaster Mitigation Act Of 2000

Department of Military and Veterans Affairs

El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation

Environmental Protection Agency

Earthquake

Erosion

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Flood

Feet

Ground Failure (Landslide)

Geographic Information System

Hazard Mitigation Assistance

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

Hazard Mitigation Plan

King Island Native Community

Knots

Magnitude

Mitigation Action Plan

Multi-Hazard

Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Mean Lower Low Water

Modified Mercalli Intensity

Miles Per Hour

National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate System Model 4.0

Nome Eskimo Community

National Flood Insurance Program

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Park Service

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Native Village of Council

National Weather Service

Peak Ground Acceleration

Radon

Representative Concentration Pathway(s)

2023 Alaska State Hazard Mitigation Plan

Scenarios Network for Alaska + Arctic Planning

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

Stafford Act

UAF

US, U.S., or USA

USACE

USDA

USDM

USGCRP

USGS

VOS

WF/CF

Acronyms/Abbreviations

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act

Severe Weather

Tsunami

University of Alaska Fairbanks

United States

United States Army Corps of Engineers

United States Department of Agriculture

U.S. Drought Monitor

United States Global Change Research Program

United States Geological Survey

Village of Solomon

Wildland Fire/Community Fire

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Executive Summary meets the State of Alaska, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency

Management’s (DHS&EM) Element H: Additional State Requirements in the Local Mitigation Plan

Review Tool.

The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property

from natural hazards. The Nome Area Tribes (including Nome Eskimo Community, King Island Native

Community, Native Village of Council, and the Village of Solomon) developed a Multi-Jurisdictional

Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) to make the residents and infrastructure in the Nome area and

historical Village sites less vulnerable to future hazard events. This plan was prepared following the

requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 so that the Tribes would be eligible for the Federal

Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs and

other federal programs.

This HMP was originally intended to protect Tribal assets in the Nome area as King Island, Council, and

Solomon are abandoned townsites and most Tribal members reside in Nome. However, throughout the

planning process, the Planning Team expressed desire to include Tribally-owned facilities/assets in their

abandoned townsites in this HMP as there is desire to reinhabit these Villages in the future. The original

townsites are commonly used by Tribal members for subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering during the

summer months.

The Tribes followed a planning process prescribed by FEMA, which began with the formation of a Hazard

Mitigation Planning Team comprised of key Tribal representatives from each jurisdiction. The Planning

Team conducted a risk assessment that identified and profiled hazards that pose a risk to Nome as well as

their historic townsites; assessed their vulnerability to those hazards; and examined the capabilities

currently in place to mitigate them.

The people, property, and lands that the community members depend on are vulnerable to several hazards

that are identified, profiled, and analyzed within this Plan. Earthquake, flood, erosion, severe weather,

wildland/tundra fire, landslide, changes in the cryosphere, tsunami, and radon are among the hazards that

could have a significant impact on the people, property, and lands in Nome, King Island townsite, Council

townsite, and Solomon townsite.

Based upon the risk assessment review and goal setting process, the Planning Team developed the following

overarching goals for this Plan:

Minimize loss of life and property from natural hazard events

Increase public awareness of risk from natural disasters

Protect public health and safety

Promote rapid hazard disaster recovery

The 2025 MJHMP establishes a series of specific mitigation strategies that were developed collaboratively

with the intent to meet the identified mitigation goals, by the Planning Team. These strategies provide a

basis for continued planning to develop specific action plans. These will be implemented over time and can

provide a means to measure progress towards hazard reduction. The Plan also describes future update and

maintenance procedures.

Executive Summary- 1

COMMUNITY PROFILE

This HMP includes the Federally Recognized Tribes in the Nome area including Nome Eskimo Community

(NEC), King Island Native Community (KINC), Native Village of Council (NVC), and the Village of

Solomon (VOS).

King Island, Council, and Solomon do not have year-round populations and most residents have relocated

to Nome. However, the Tribes still have assets in these Villages and some members travel to the townsites

during the summer for subsistence and recreational activities.

This MJHMP was developed to protect each Federally Recognized Tribe’s assets in the Nome area as well

as their assets in their historical townsites. Figure 1 shows a map of the Planning Area. Nome, the historic

townsites of King Island, Solomon, Council, and Woolley Lagoon, subsistence lands of the King Island

Native Community, are included in the Planning Area.

• Woolley Lagoon

Figure 1- Map of the Planning Area

Location

Nome

Nome was built along the Bering Sea on the south coast of the Seward Peninsula, facing Norton Sound. It

lies 539 air miles northwest of Anchorage, a 75-minute flight. It lies 102 miles south of the Arctic Circle

and 161 miles east of Russia.

Nome encompasses 12.5 square (sq) miles of land and 9.1 sq miles of water. Nome is the transportation

and commercial hub community for the communities across the Seward Peninsula and Norton Sound in the

Bering Strait Region.

King Island

King Island is located 40 miles west of Cape Douglas in the Bering Sea, northwest of Nome. The island is

primarily precipitous rock, 700 feet high, and approximately one mile long.

Executive Summary- 2

Council

Council is located at the terminus of the Nome-Council road, 60 miles northeast of Nome. It lies on the

right bank of the Niukluk River.

Solomon

Solomon is located on the west bank of the Solomon River, 30 miles east of Nome. It lies one mile north

of Norton Sound.

History

Nome Eskimo Community

Malemiut, Kauweramiut, and Unalikmiut Inupiat have occupied the Seward Peninsula historically, with a

well-developed culture adapted to the environment. Around 1870 to 1880, the caribou declined on the

Peninsula and the resident Inupiat changed their diets. Gold discoveries in the Nome area had been reported

as far back as 1865 by Western Union surveyors seeking a route across Alaska and the Bering Sea. But it

was a $1500-to-the-pan gold strike on tiny Anvil Creek in 1898 by three Scandinavians, Jafet Lindeberg,

Erik Lindblom, and John Brynteson, that brought thousands of miners to the "Eldorado." The Scandinavians

named, the “Three Lucky Swedes” count their luck to two young Inupaiq boys, Constantine Uparazuck and

Gabriel Adams, who are credited with showing the Swedes to the site where the gold was found. Almost

overnight an isolated stretch of tundra fronting the beach was transformed into a tent-and-log cabin city of

20,000 prospectors, gamblers, claim jumpers, saloon keepers, and prostitutes. The gold-bearing creeks had

been almost completely staked, when some entrepreneur discovered the "golden sands of Nome." With

nothing more than shovels, buckets, rockers and wheel barrows, thousands of idle miners descended upon

the beaches. Two months later the golden sands had yielded one million dollars in gold (at $16 an ounce).

A narrow-gauge railroad and telephone line from Nome to Anvil Creek was built in 1900. The City of

Nome was formed in 1901. By 1902 the more easily reached claims were exhausted and large mining

companies with better equipment took over the mining operations. Since the first strike on tiny Anvil Creek,

Nome's gold fields have yielded $136 million. The gradual depletion of gold, exposure to communicable

diseases by visiting ships, a major influenza epidemic in 1918, the Great Depression, and World War II

each influenced Nome's population. A disastrous fire in 1934 destroyed most of the city.

The population of Nome is home to Inupiat and non-native residents. Today, Nome is a regional hub for

communities across the Seward Peninsula and Norton Sound in the Bering Strait Region, providing medical

and jet services for locals and residents of the surrounding communities.

The Port of Nome supports over 400 regional seafood harvesters and processors and port traffic has

increased exponentially since 1990. Groceries, construction equipment and materials, and other supplies

are shipped out of the Port of Nome to 60 communities from the North Slope to the Aleutian Islands. To

support National Security, Life Safety, Environmental Protection, Economic Viability, and Sustaining

Culture, the Port of Nome is expanding to a deep draft port.

Subsistence activities are prevalent in the community. Former villagers from King Island, Council, and

Solomon also live in Nome. Nome is the finish line for the 1,100-mile Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race from

Anchorage, held each March.

As an organization, Nome Eskimo Community’s origins date back to 1939 when it was formed under the

Indian Reorganization Act as a Federally Recognized Tribe. NEC’s members, however, have roots in the

region that extends back over millennia.

Executive Summary- 3

Initially, NEC operated in a political manner, functioning as the Tribal governing body for the area. As

NEC has grown, their focus has expanded to provide social services and programs to improve the quality

of life for our tribal members, Alaska Natives, and Native Americans who reside in Nome.

NEC now offers a multitude of services organized under the following service programs: Family Services,

Tribal Services, Youth Services, Tribal Resources, and Housing Program. Learn more about these programs

and their specific offerings.

King Island Native Community

King Island was historically occupied by Inupiat, who call themselves "Ugiuvaŋmiut." The Island is called

Ugiuvak in Inupiaq which roughly translates to, a place for winter. Unbeknown to the Ugiuvaŋmiut, Captain

Cook gave the Island an English name in 1778, King Island, for his Lt. James King.

The village was occupied during the winter by approximately 200 Inupiat, who achieved fame as hunters,

ivory carvers and dancers, they lived in walrus-skin dwellings lashed to the face of a cliff. The Ugiuvaŋmiut

subsisted on Walrus, Seal, bird as well as Crab, Shrimp, Fish, Kelp, various greens, roots and berries, and

plants. The island had a natural cold storage cave (Qaitquq) used for long term food storage. Every summer,

the entire population would travel to the mainland by qayaq and umiaq. They would stay on mainland for

a few months to hunt and fish for caribou, salmon, and to gather berries and greens and to barter goods for

supply.

In 1929 a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) school and a Catholic church was built. Once Nome was founded,

the Ugiuvaŋmiut customarily camped near town each summer to sell their intricate ivory carvings. In 1937,

Lt. Commander R.C. Sarratt reported that the village was comprised of 190 residents, 45 houses, a Catholic

church, and a school with electric lights, heat, and running water. That year, 200 walruses and 2,000 seals

were harvested by Ugiuvaŋmiut. During this time, the United States Coast Guard Cutter NorthStar was

transporting Ugiuvaŋmiut to Nome where they set up camp at the edge of Nome.

The decline of King Island’s population is attributed to several factors, mainly due to the forced relocation

from King Island to Nome in 1958 when the BIA closed the school. Children were forcibly removed from

their parents’ arms to attend school in Nome. Other factors such as: exposure to communicable diseases by

visiting ships and health care was hard to access on the island contributed to the population decline. There

were increased cases of tuberculosis, which led to those who were sick to be sent to a sanitarium on the

mainland. The introduction of the Indian Relocation Act of 1956 provided post-eight grade education at

Indian boarding schools on mainland. In 1960, 49 residents were counted by the U.S. Census and that year

the church was closed. By 1966, there were no longer Ugiuvaŋmiut living on the island.

King Island community members had been settling in Nome every summer on the East End of town, which

they called Qiġutaq. There was no electricity, running water, or waste services at the site and attempts were

made to request federal assistance to establish a new village at Cape Woolley for the relocated King Island

community members. World War II Quonset huts and abandoned Gold Rush buildings were used as shared

homes by the Ugiuvaŋmiut at Qiġutaq.

During the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act negotiations, King Island Native Corporation was

established and received title to land around Cape Woolley and Woolley Lagoon as well as all of King

Island. Tribal members/shareholders of the King Island Native Corporation have lands in and around Cape

Wooley.

King Island is listed in the Native Corporation Intellectual Cultural Property Rights Policy, which requires

an access permit to their lands.

In 1974 a series of three severe Bering Sea storms caused a 10-12 foot storm surge that required the

Ugiuvaŋmiut to evacuate with no notice, resulting in the loss of their homes, tools, valuables, food storages,

and equipment. The storm surge moved vessels and barges through the East End community destroying

many remaining standing structures before the water receded. The Ugiuvaŋmiut dispersed across Nome to

Executive Summary- 4

emergency shelter and family and friends. In the 1990s a federal housing program replaced the homes of

King Island community members near the historic East End community. Today, the Ugiuvaŋmiut are yearround residents of Nome and own the largest amount of road mileage in the Bering Strait Region.

Native Village of Council

Historically, Council was a fish camp for the Fish River Tribe, who originally lived 12 miles downstream.

Council's history is synonymous with the gold rush period. Gold was first discovered in the area by Daniel

B. Libby and party in 1897. By 1898 there were 50 log houses. The gold found at Ophir Creek was the

second richest claim in the world. During the summers of 1897-99, the population of "Council City" was

estimated at 15,000. It had a hotel, wooden boardwalks, a 20-bed hospital, a post office, and numerous bars.

The discovery of more gold at Nome in 1900 caused many of the boomers to leave Council. However, the

population in 1910 was 686. The depletion of gold, exposure to communicable diseases by visiting ships,

the flu epidemic of 1918, the Depression, and World War II all contributed to the decline of the population.

By 1950, only nine people remained. The post office closed in 1953.

Today, the community is not occupied year-round. Council is primarily a summer fish camp site for Nome

residents.

Village of Solomon

The village was originally settled by Inupiat of the Fish River tribe and was noted on a map as "Erok" in

1900. The original site for Solomon was in the delta of the Solomon River; it became a mining camp. The

gold rush during the summers of 1899 and 1900 brought thousands of people to the Solomon area. Three

enormous dredges worked the Solomon River. By 1904, Solomon had seven saloons, a post office, and a

ferry dock and was the southern terminus of a narrow-gauge railroad that ran to the Kuzitrin River. In 1913,

the railroad was washed out by storms, and in 1918 the flu epidemic struck. These events, combined with

exposure to communicable diseases by visiting ships led to the population decline. This site is known as

Dickson today, and remains of structures and railroad equipment exist. In 1939, the community relocated

to the present site, which was formerly known as Jerusalem. The BIA constructed a large school in 1940.

During World War II, many families moved away from Solomon. The post office and BIA school were

discontinued in 1956. The Solomon Roadhouse operated until the 1970s.

In 2006, the Solomon Bed and Breakfast opened, which is owned by the Tribe.

Solomon is currently a subsistence-use area used by descendants of the families that once resided here.

Climate

Nome, King Island, Council and Solomon fall within the transitional climate zone, characterized by tundra

interspersed with boreal forests, and weather patterns of long, cold winters and shorter, warm summers.

Over the course of the year, the temperature typically varies from -1°F to 58°F and is rarely below -26°F

or above 69°F.

Table 1 shows average weather data recorded at the Nome Airport from 2016-2023.

Table 1- Average Weather Data for Nome (2016-2023)

Month

Avg Temp (⁰F)

Avg Rainfall (in)

Avg Snowfall (in)

Avg Wind Speed (mph)

January

February

March

April

May

June

6⁰

8⁰

11⁰

22⁰

37⁰

48⁰

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.3

0.8

1.0

8.6

7.8

5.3

4.4

1.5

0.1

15.7

15.4

14.2

12.4

10.7

9.5

Executive Summary- 5

July

August

September

October

November

December

52⁰

51⁰

43⁰

30⁰

18⁰

10⁰

2.1

2.8

2.1

1.2

0.6

0.2

0.0

0.2

2.3

7.3

8.6

10.1

11.7

13.1

14.3

15.7

15.9

Data collected at the Nome Airport.

Source: Weather Spark (2024)

Transportation

Nome is a regional center of transportation for surrounding villages. The Port of Nome plays an essential

role in regional transportation infrastructure. Nome is primarily accessible by air, although containerized

household goods, building materials, vehicles, heavy equipment, and all petroleum products arrive by water

during summer months. There are 10-12 cargo barges and 8-10 fuel barges/tankers that make scheduled

deliveries each season. An additional trans-loading facility in the Inner Harbor was built in 2013 to address

congestion at the existing barge ramp and allow more efficient transfers of cargo and rolling stock. The

Small Boat Harbor plays host to about 25 commercial fishing vessels and a large offshore mining fleet

which at times exceeds capacity. Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT's) Snake River Bridge

Replacement Project was completed in 2013 and will facilitate the increased traffic to and from the Port.

Two state-owned airports are located in the community. The Nome Airport, located one mile northwest of

the City, has two paved runways. Nome City Field, less than one mile north of the City, offers an additional

gravel strip. Scheduled jet flights are available, as well as charter and helicopter services. Regional travel

is facilitated by a network of 230 miles of gravel roads between Nome and the communities of Teller,

Solomon, and Council. A network of winter trails links with outlying communities during winter months.

During summer months, tribal members travel to King Island in boats to subsistence hunt.

Demographics

In 2022, the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) certified population in Nome

was 3,463 residents, down from 3,699 residents in 2020. The population is relatively young, and the median

age is 31.0 years. Nome is a diverse communtiy- 53.64% of residents identifiy themselves as Alaska Native,

26.77% White, 2.99% Asian, 1.83% Black or African American, 14.2% as two or more races, and 1.57%

as other race (DCRA 2024). The composition of the population is 50.08% female and 49.92% male.

There are an estimated 1,173 households in this community with the average household size of 2.90 (US

Census 2022).

King Island, Solomon, and Council do not currently have year-round populations.

Executive Summary- 6

Historic Population of Nome

14,000

12,000

Population

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

Year

Data from DCRA (2024)

Figure 2- Historical Population of Nome

Historic Population of King Island

250

Population

200

150

100

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

Year

Data from DCRA (2024)

Figure 3- Historical Population of King Island

Executive Summary- 7

2020

Historic Population of Council

16,000

14,000

Population

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2000

2020

Year

Data from DCRA (2024)

Figure 4- Historical Population of Council

Historic Population of Solomon

6,000

Population

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

Year

Data from DCRA (2024)

Figure 5- Historical Population of Solomon

Economy

Employment in Nome is primarily Health Care, Public Administration, Education, Utilities, Mining, and

Professional Services. Although some employment opportunities are available, subsistence activities are

prevalent in the community (Kawerak 2024).

The potential work force (those aged 16 to 64) in Nome was estimated to be 2,461, of which, 1,209 (49.1%)

were actively employed year-round (US Census 2022). The unemployment rate in Nome is estimated at

16.3% by American Community Surveys, while the state unemployment rate is currently 4.7% (as of

January 2024) and nationally 3.8% (as of March 2024).

Executive Summary- 8

A 5-year average from 2018-2022 places the median household income at $103,542. Two hundred and

twelve (212) people are below the poverty level, and 337 people are below 125% of the poverty level

(DCRA 2024).

Executive Summary- 9

VULNERABILITY SNAPSHOTS

Executive Summary Snapshot- Nome (Shared, Non-Tribal Assets)

Estimated Losses

Extent (Nome)

Annual Probability

(Nome)

# of CF:

$ of CF:

# of residences

$ of residences

Earthquake

$805,490,826

1,495

$1,083,707,560

Negligible

Likely

Severe Weather

$805,490,826

1,495

$1,083,707,560

Limited to Critical

Highly Likely

Wildland/Tundra Fire

$805,490,826

1,495

$1,083,707,560

Negligible

Unlikely

Changes in the

Cryosphere

$805,490,826

1,495

$1,083,707,560

Critical

Likely

Radon is a public health concern but is not anticipated to impact infrastructure.

Limited

Highly Likely

Radon

Flood

$316,388,957

$25,371,080

Critical

Likely

Tsunami

$316,388,957

$25,371,080

Negligible

Unlikely

Erosion

Critical

Likely

Landslide

Limited

Possible

Volcano

This hazard does not pose a direct threat to the Nome area

CF= critical facilities

Executive Summary- 10

Executive Summary Snapshot- Nome Eskimo Community

Estimated Losses

Extent (Nome)

Annual Probability (Nome)

$1,100,000

Negligible

Likely

$1,100,000

Limited to Critical

Highly Likely

Wildland/Tundra Fire

$1,100,000

Negligible

Unlikely

Changes in the

Cryosphere

$1,100,000

Critical

Likely

Flood

$100,000

Critical

Likely

Tsunami

$100,000

Negligible

Unlikely

Erosion

Critical

Likely

Landslide

Limited

Possible

# of CF:

$ of CF:

Earthquake

Severe Weather

Volcano

This hazard does not pose a direct threat to the Nome area.

CF= critical facilities

Executive Summary- 11

Executive Summary Snapshot- King Island Native Community

Estimated Losses

# and $ of CF in Nome:

Extent

# and $ of CF at King Island

townsite:

Annual Probability

Nome

King Island townsite

Nome

King Island townsite

Earthquake

# of CF: 6

$ of CF: $4,050,000

# of CF: 3

$ of CF: Unknown

Negligible

Likely

Severe Weather

# of CF: 6

$ of CF: $4,050,000

# of CF: 3

$ of CF: Unknown

Limited to Critical

Highly Likely

Wildland/Tundra Fire

# of CF: 6

$ of CF: $4,050,000

N/A

Negligible

N/A

Unlikely

N/A

Changes in the

Cryosphere

# of CF: 6

$ of CF: $4,050,000

# of CF: 3

$ of CF: Unknown

Critical

Likely

Limited

Highly Likely

Radon

Radon is a public health concern but is not anticipated to impact

infrastructure.

Flood

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $750,000

N/A

Critical

N/A

Likely

N/A

Tsunami

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $750,000

N/A

Negligible

N/A

Unlikely

N/A

Erosion

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $750,000

N/A

Critical

N/A

Likely

N/A

Landslide

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF:

$ of CF: Unknown

Limited

Possible

Volcano

This hazard does not pose a direct threat to the Nome area or King Island townsite.

CF= critical facilities

N/A: Not Applicable. This hazard does not threaten the King Island townsite.

Executive Summary- 12

Executive Summary Snapshot- Native Village of Council

Estimated Losses

# and $ of CF in Nome:

Extent

# and $ of CF at Council townsite:

Annual Probability

Nome

Council townsite

Nome

Council townsite

Earthquake

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $300,000

# of CF: 6

$ of CF: $6,050,000

Negligible

Likely

Severe Weather

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $300,000

# of CF: 6

$ of CF: $6,050,000

Limited to Critical

Highly Likely

Wildland/Tundra Fire

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $300,000

# of CF: 6

$ of CF: $6,050,000

Negligible

Critical

Unlikely

Possible

Changes in the

Cryosphere

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $300,000

# of CF: 6

$ of CF: $6,050,000

Critical

Likely

Limited

Highly Likely

Radon

Radon is a public health concern but is not anticipated to impact

infrastructure.

Flood

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $100,000

Critical

Likely

Tsunami

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

N/A

Negligible

N/A

Unlikely

N/A

Erosion

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF:

$ of CF: $

Critical

Likely

Landslide

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF:

$ of CF: $

Limited

Possible

Volcano

This hazard does not pose a direct threat to the Nome area or Council townsite.

CF= critical facilities

N/A: Not Applicable. This hazard does not threaten the Council townsite.

Executive Summary- 13

Executive Summary Snapshot- Village of Solomon

Estimated Losses

# and $ of CF in Nome:

Extent

# and $ of CF at Solomon townsite:

Annual Probability

Nome

Solomon townsite

Nome

Solomon townsite

Earthquake

# of CF: 3

$ of CF: $1,800,000

# of CF: 31

$ of CF: $34,610,000

Negligible

Likely

Severe Weather

# of CF: 3

$ of CF: $1,800,000

# of CF: 31

$ of CF: $34,610,000

Limited to

Critical

Limited to Critical

Highly Likely

Wildland/Tundra Fire

# of CF: 3

$ of CF: $1,800,000

# of CF: 31

$ of CF: $34,610,000

Negligible

Critical

Unlikely

Changes in the

Cryosphere

# of CF: 3

$ of CF: $1,800,000

# of CF: 31

$ of CF: $34,610,000

Critical

Likely

Limited

Highly Likely

Radon

Radon is a public health concern but is not anticipated to impact

infrastructure.

Flood

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF: 21

$ of CF: $23,360,000

Critical

Likely

Tsunami

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF: 21

$ of CF: $23,360,000

Negligible

Unlikely

Erosion

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF: 22

$ of CF: $24,360,000

Critical

Likely

Landslide

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $1,000,000

Limited

Possible

Volcano

This hazard does not pose a direct threat to the Nome area or Solomon townsite.

CF= critical facilities

Executive Summary- 14

CRITICAL FACILITIES

Tsunami

SOA/

Private

227 Airport

64°30’39”N

165°26’40”W

$3,000,000

SOA

64°32’14”N

165°24’35”W

$50,000,000

Private

64°32’32”N

165°24’30”W

$50,000,000

SOA

64°26’13”N

165°00’26”W

$100,000,000

Private

64°30’20”N

165°23’56”W

$948,130

CON

Wildfire

$80,000,000

Volcano

165°26’40”W

Small Boat Harbor

64°30’05”N

165°25’12”W

$5,000,000

CON

Port, Cape Nome BSNC

64°29’37”N

165°26’22”W

$100,000,000

Private

Port office building

64°30’08”N

165°25’16”W

$120,668

CON

64°30’07”N

165°26’02”W

$20,000,000

Private

64°30’18”N

165°23’43”W

$13,276,363

CON

64°30’05”N

165°24’29”W

$2,451,269

CON

64°31’10”N

165°22’28”W

$354,874

CON

Port/ Shipping Services

Alaska Logistics, AML

– Barges

Nome Police

station/animal

shelter/public safety

Fire/Building Inspector

Department/Public

Works

Fire Dept- Icy View

Station

307 Belmont

Executive Summary- 15

Radon

Severe Weather

64°30’39”N

Landslide

227 Airport

Facility

Owner

Erosion

Building

Type

Emergency Services

Facility

Value

Flood

Longitude

Earthquake

Transportation & Equipment

Airport – Cargo,

Passenger Lynden,

NAC, AK Air, Bering)

Airport Runways

(Engstrom’s, Feather

River, City, State)

Heavy EquipmentTumet

Heavy EquipmentDOT/PF

Heavy equipment/Rock

quarry Cape Nome

Quarry

Grader Greg- Heavy

Equipment storage

Latitude

Cryosphere

Facility Name

Address

# of Occupants

Facility Type

Critical Facilities in Nome That Are Utilized By All Tribes In The Area

Health NSHC Facilities

Nome Elementary

School

Nome High School

Nome Charter School

NACTEC Bldg. and

garage

1000 Greg

Kruschek

Avenue

1057 E 5th

Ave

3.5 Teller

Hwy

3.5 Teller

Hwy

3.5 NomeTeller Hwy

Nome Preschool

911 E 5th Ave

Utilities

Shelters

Fuel/Tank farm

(Bonanza, Crowley,

NJUS)

Utility System – Nome

joint utility system

Public works building

Aurora Inn – room,

rental, BSNC

Old Youth Facility –

rooms, rental

Bering Sea Women’s –

for women and children

BSRHA/Munqsri/NEST

at winter houses

homeless population

(elder and special needs

population)

Office building Kawerak

Facilities (main, old)

64°30’05”N

165°24’29”W

$750,000

CON

64°29’53”N

165°22’46”W

$1,000,000

NSHC

64°29’51”N

165°22’59”W

$2,500,000

CON

64°32’31”N

165°24’18”W

$2,500,000

CON

64°32’32”N

165°24’26”W

$2,500,000

CON

64°32’35”N

165°24’12”W

$3,179,121

CON

64°29’48”N

165°22’56”W

$2,500,000

CON

64°30’11”N

165°26’15”W

$70,000,000

OTF

Private

1226 Port Rd

64°30’23”N

165°25’45”W

$100,000,000

CON/

NJUS

102 Division

64°29’53”N

165°24’34”W

$1,748,241

CON

302 Front St

64°29’47”N

165°23’51”W

$3,000,000

Private

64°29’48”N

165°23’08”W

$2,000,000

Private

406 Tobuk

Alley

64°30’06”N

165°24’33”W

$4,000,000

Non-profit

1008 Front St

64°29’57”N

165°24’29”W

$2,000,000

Non-profit

500 Seppala

64°30’03”N

165°24’40”W

$20,000,000

Kawerak

Executive Summary- 16

Wildfire

$10,000,000

Volcano

165°26’40”W

Tsunami

64°30’39”N

Landslide

1230 Center

Creek Road

Facility

Owner

Erosion

Building

Type

Flood

Facility

Value

Radon

Search and rescue team

bldg.

Severe Weather

Longitude

Earthquake

National Guard Hangar

Latitude

Cryosphere

Address

# of Occupants

Facility Type

Medi

cal

Education

Facility Name

Kawerak

Office Building Old

Federal Building –

BSNC

112 Front St

64°29’51”N

165°24’19”W

$2,000,000

Private

USPS

113 Front St

64°29’49”N

165°24’19”W

$2,000,000

USPS

Prison–Anvil Mountain

Correctional Center

Prison–Seaside Center –

privately owned

1810 Center

Creek Rd

64°32’14”N

165°24’46”W

$5,000,000

SOA

108 Front St

64°29’50”N

165°24’14”W

$1,000,000

Private

Building/fire inspector

64°30’05”N

165°24’29”W

$2,451,269

CON

Garco

64°30’05”N

165°25’58”W

$935,922

CON

Landfill/dump building

combined

64°31’19”N

165°16’53”W

$1,062,212

CON

Library, museum-old

64°30’10”N

165°23’55”W

$4,566,689

CON

Mini Convention Center

64°29’53”N

165°24’48”W

$1,242,473

CON

Cemetery Morgue

64°30’14”N

165°25’17”W

$423,847

CON

Community Cemetery

64°30’18”N

165°25’16”W

$2,500,000

CON

NEC Cemetery

64°30’05”N

165°26’21”W

$2,500,000

CON

Fort Davis Post

Cemetery

64°29’13”N

165°18’36”W

$2,500,000

CON

St. Joe’s Church

100 W King

64°29’56”N

165°24’07”W

$2,720,269

CON

Recreation Center

208 E 6th Ave

64°30’04”N

165°23’44”W

$8,573,948

CON

Richard Foster

museum/library

100 W 7th

Ave

64°30’10”N

165°23’55”W

$21,091,545

CON

Visitor Center

301 Front St

64°29’52”N

165°24’36”W

$275,957

CON

XYZ Senior Center

104 Division

64°29’54”N

165°24’34”W

$2,399,029

CON

100 W 7th

Ave

102 Division

Executive Summary- 17

Radon

$3,419,000

Wildfire

165°23’16”W

Facility

Owner

Volcano

64°29’55”N

Building

Type

Tsunami

880 E 6th Ave

Community

Severe Weather

Earthquake

Kawerak Head Start

Facility

Value

Landslide

Cryosphere

Longitude

Erosion

Address

Latitude

Flood

# of Occupants

Facility Type

Facility Name

Private

Grocery Store- Hanson’s

415 Bering St

64°30’03”N

165°24’29”W

$5,000,000

Private

Hardware StoresGrizzley

Hardware StoreBuilder’s Industrial

Supply

60 Greg

Kruschek Ave

64°30’21”N

165°24’03”W

$3,000,000

Private

64°30’06”N

165°24’56”W

$3,000,000

Private

64°30’05”N

165°25’19”W

$10,000,000

NSEDC

Fish Plant (NSEDC)

Credit Union 1

406 Warren Pl

64°30’03”N

165°24’31”W

$1,666,667

Private

Wells Fargo

109 Front St

64°29’49”N

165°24’17”W

$1,666,667

Private

Northrim Bank

306 W 5th

Ave

64°30’08”N

165°24’21”W

$1,666,667

Private

306 W 5th

Ave

64°30’08”N

165°24’21”W

$1,000,000

Private/SOA

64°29’49”N

165°24’06”W

$2,000,000

Private

$50,000,000

Non-profit

$2,000,000

SOA

503

Court house in old

hospital/Nome Public

Health Nursing

Pioneer Hall – cooking

facilities

Churches – cooking

facilities (Multiple

locations)

Armory – gym facility

159 Front St

64°29’46”N

165°23’55”W

Total:

$805,490,826

Executive Summary- 18

Radon

$5,000,000

Wildfire

165°24’18”W

Facility

Owner

Volcano

64°30’20”N

Building

Type

Tsunami

1 Nome-Teller

Total:

Severe Weather

Earthquake

Grocery Store- AC

Facility

Value

Landslide

Cryosphere

Longitude

Erosion

Address

Latitude

Flood

# of Occupants

Facility Type

Facility Name

Nome Eskimo Community Critical Facilities in Nome

Total:

$1,000,000

NEC

Empty lot

64°29’46”N

165°23’33”W

$100,000

Gravel

NEC

Culturally

Sacred or

Significant Sites

Subsistence

Camps

Total:

$1,100,000

The locations of culturally sacred sites and subsistence camps are sensitive. Contact the Tribal office if you need further information

Executive Summary- 19

Wildfire

165°24’11”W

Volcano

64°30’04”N

Tsunami

Tribal Offices

and Hall and

Heavy

Equipment

Severe Weather

Facility

Owner

Landslide

Building

Type

Erosion

Facility

Value

Flood

Longitude

Earthquake

Community

Latitude

Cryosphere

Government

Facility Name

Address

Facility Type

# of Occupants

Nome Eskimo Community’s Assets in Nome

King Island Native Community Critical Facilities

1 duplex in town

64°29’53”N

165°23’22”W

$500,000

KINC IRA

2 duplex in Icy View

Old Grizzley shop

Vacant lot

Woolley Lagoon

Culturally Sacred or Significant

Sites

Subsistence Camps

64°31’19”N

64°31’18”N

64°30’08”N

64°51’20”N

165°22’21”W

165°22’18”W

165°23’55”W

166°24’01”W

$700,000

$1,000,000

$100,000

$750,000

Gravel

N/A

KINC IRA

Corporation

Total:

$4,050,000

Total:

Radon

Wildfire

Volcano

KINC IRA

Facility

Owner

Tsunami

Building

Type

Severe Weather

$1,000,000

Facility

Value

Landslide

Earthquake

165°23’15”W

Longitude

Erosion

Cryosphere

64°29’49”N

Latitude

Flood

# of Occupants

Tribal Offices and Hall and

Heavy Equipment

Facility Name

Address

Facility Type

Community

Govern

ment

King Island Native Community’s Assets in Nome

Total:

Corporation

Cemetery

Old Church

Culturally Sacred or Significant

Sites

Subsistence Camps

64°57’43”N

64°57’41”N

168°04’15”W

168°04’14”W

Unknown

N/A

Corporation

Total: Unknown

Radon is a public health concern but is not anticipated to impact infrastructure.

The locations of culturally sacred sites and subsistence camps are sensitive. Contact the Tribal office if you need further information

Executive Summary- 20

Radon

Facility

Owner

Wildfire

Unknown

Building

Type

Volcano

Severe Weather

168°04’15”W

Facility

Value

Tsunami

Landslide

64°57’41”N

Longitude

Erosion

Former BIA School

Latitude

Flood

Facility Name

Address

Earthquake

# of Occupants

Cryosphere

Community

Facility Type

King Island Native Community’s Assets in King Island

Native Village of Council Critical Facilities

NVC

Total:

$300,000

Radon

Wildfire

$300,000

Volcano

165°23’19”W

Tsunami

64°29’54”N

Severe Weather

Total:

Facility

Owner

Landslide

Subsistence Camps

Building

Type

Erosion

Facility Value

Flood

Culturally Sacred or Significant

Sites

Longitude

Earthquake

Latitude

Cryosphere

# of Occupants

Tribal Office

Facility Name

Address

Facility Type

Govern

ment

Community

Native Village of Council’s Assets in Nome

1300 ft airstrip

64°53’44”N

163°41’40”W

$5,000,000

Gravel

SOA

Camp Bendeleben

64°53’33”N

163°40’26”W

$300,000

CNC

Community Building

Fish Camps

Cemetery

Culturally Sacred or Significant

Sites

Subsistence Camps

64°53’37”N

64°53’40”N

64°53’56”N

163°40’13”W

163°40’35”W

163°40’47”W

$200,000

$250,000

NVC

Private

Total:

$6,050,000

Radon is a public health concern but is not anticipated to impact infrastructure.

The locations of culturally sacred sites and subsistence camps are sensitive. Contact the Tribal office if you need further information or assistance.

Executive Summary- 21

Radon

None

Facility

Owner

Wildfire

Erosion

Building

Type

Volcano

Flood

$100,000

Facility Value

Tsunami

Earthquake

163°40’24”W

Longitude

Severe Weather

Cryosphere

64°53’39”N

Latitude

Landslide

# of Occupants

Pumphouse

Facility Name

Address

Facility Type

Community

Utility/

Transp

ortation

Native Village of Council’s Assets in Council

Village of Solomon Critical Facilities

Total:

64°29’56”N

165°23’13”W

$650,000

Gravel

VOS

64°30’04”N

165°24’22”W

$150,000

VOS

Total:

$1,800,000

Facility Value

Building

Type

Facility

Owner

$5,000,000

Gravel

SOA

Wildfire

Volcano

Tsunami

VOS

Radon

Severe Weather

Landslide

1,000,000

Erosion

165°24’22”W

Flood

64°30’04”N

Erosion

Facility

Owner

Flood

Building

Type

Earthquake

5 lots (E 6th Ave)

Tiny Home

(at Solomon Building)

Culturally Sacred or Significant

Sites

Facility Value

Earthquake

Community

Longitude

Cryosphere

Solomon Building

(3 apartments/1 office)

Latitude

Cryosphere

# of Occupants

Address

Facility Type

Facility Name

Govern

ment

Village of Solomon’s Assets in Nome

Subsistence Camps

164°26’34”W

$5,000,000

Gravel

SNC

Boat Launch at Bonanza

64°32’03”N

164°29’05”W

$1,000,000

SNC

Safety Bridge

64°28’19”N

164°44’49”W

$250,000

SOA

Bonanza Bridge

64°32’41”N

164°26’12”W

$ 250,000

SOA

East Fork Bridge

64°41’32”N

164°16’49”W

$250,000

SOA

Big Hurrah Bridge

64°39’19”N

164°19’05”W

$250,000

SOA

Executive Summary- 22

Radon

64°33’42”N

Wildfire

Old Runway

Volcano

Throughout the Village

Tsunami

Road maintained by the State

Longitude

Severe Weather

Latitude

Landslide

Facility Name

Address

# of Occupants

Transportation

Facility Type

Village of Solomon’s Assets in Solomon

Erosion

Severe Weather

Tsunami

164°26’29”W

$10,000

PWTS

VOS

Well House and Pump

64°33’36”N

164°26’28”W

$300,000

VOS

64°33’35”N

164°26’32”W

$1,000,000

Solar

VOS

64°33’35”N

164°26’33”W

$150,000

VOS

64°35’46”N

164°23’35”W

$3,500,000

Gravel

SOA

Community

Facility

Owner

Solomon Bed and Breakfast

64°33’35”N

164°26’32”W

$5,000,000

VOS

Okitkon ER Shelter Cabin

64°33’34”N

164°26’40”W

$100,000

VOS

Subsistence Camps x10

$500,000

Private

Cemetery

Total:

7kW rooftop Solar Panel

System (on B&B w/ 10 li-ion

batteries and solar ark inverter

Generator house w/ 10 kW

diesel aurora generator

Shovel Creek and Minala

Creek – Solomon Native Corp

material gravel site

Building

Type

Subsistence Lands/Water

(Bonanza Channel, Solomon,

Bonanza)

Last Train to Nowhere

Tiny Home on Wheels

Culturally Sacred or Significant

Sites

Subsistence Camps

Multiple locations

64°33’46”N

164°26’25”W

$1,000,000

N/A

SNC

64°32’16”N

164°29’13”W

$10,000,000

N/A

SNC

64°32’45”N

164°26’10”W

$1,000,000

N/A

SNC

64°33’36”N

164°26’32”W

$50,000

SNC

Total:

$34,610,000

Radon is a public health concern but is not anticipated to impact infrastructure.

The locations of culturally sacred sites and subsistence camps are sensitive. Contact the Tribal office if you need further information or assistance.

Executive Summary- 23

Radon

Flood

64°33’36”N

Facility Value

Wildfire

Earthquake

200-gallon water tank

Longitude

Volcano

Cryosphere

Latitude

Landslide

Facility Name

Address

# of Occupants

Utilities

Facility Type

Village of Solomon’s Assets in Solomon

MITIGATION ACTION PLAN (MAP)

The Nome Eskimo Community, King Island Native Community, Native Village of Council, and Village of Solomon’s MAPs depicts how each mitigation action will be implemented and administered by the Tribe/Planning Team. Each MAP

details each selected mitigation action, its priorities, the responsible entity, the anticipated implementation timeline, and provides a brief explanation as to how the overall benefit/costs and technical feasibility were taken into consideration.

MH 6

Support and coordinate with Kawerak to collect

and maintain database of critical facilities with

before and after photos and evaluation post

hazard event

MH 7

Elevate or relocate structures from hazard prone

areas.

Responsible

Dept

Potential

Funding

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

BIA,

DHS&EM,

Kawerak

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

BIA,

DHS&EM

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes,

DHS&EM

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

BIA,

DHS&EM

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA

Kawerak

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA

FEMA, Denali

Timeframe

Benefits-Costs/ Technical Feasibility

Plan Integration

MH 5

Pursue funding for development and update of

existing community plans (land use plan,

comprehensive

plan,

small

community

emergency

response

plan,

economic

development

plan,

transportation

plan,

subsistence hunting and fishing plan, etc.)

VOS

Develop and maintain a Small Community

Emergency Response Plan (SCERP) for Nome

and the townsites during summer season

NVC

MH 4

VOS

FLD

MH 3

Develop, produce, and distribute information

materials concerning mitigation, preparedness,

and safety procedures for all identified natural

hazards.

NVC

MH 2

Identify and pursue funding opportunities to

implement mitigation actions and to keep

mitigation plan up to date (every 5 years).

KINC

MH 1

Hold an annual hazard meeting to provide

information to residents about recognizing and

mitigating all natural hazards that affect the

community.

NEC

Action Description

Priority- Townsites

Action

Priority- Nome Area/General

Nome Area Tribes 2025 MAP

Annually

B/C: Sustained mitigation outreach program has minimal cost and will help build and

support area-wide capacity. This type of activity enables the public to prepare for,

respond to, and recover from disasters. Another benefit is this meeting could complete

the annual HMP review questionnaire by reviewing hazard impacts and mitigation

project status.

TF: This low-cost activity can be combined with recurring community meetings

where hazard specific information can be presented in small increments.

LEDP, SCERP,

Strategic Plan,

TCAP

Annually

B/C: Having an active HMP in place allows the Tribes to be eligible for mitigation

action funding. This is essential to decrease the Tribes’ vulnerability from natural

hazards.

TF: This project is technically feasible with Tribal or subcontractor resources.

LEDP, SCERP,

LRTP, Strategic

Plan

1-3 years

B/C: This project would provide written materials to residents to educate them on

mitigation, preparedness, and safety procedures in the event of a disaster.

TF: This low cost project is technically feasible with the purchase/development of

the materials. FEMA or other agencies may be able to provide this information with

little to no cost to the community.

LEDP, SCERP,

Strategic Plan

Annually to

Triennially

B/C: The SCERP is a new and exciting approach to emergency management for

small communities. The SCERP is a customized flipbook with essential, communityspecific information for responding to the first 72 hours of a disaster. None of the

jurisdictions have a SCERP.

TF: This project is technically feasible with Tribal resources and assistance from

DHS&EM to develop the SCERP.

SCERP

Annually

B/C: Coordinated planning ensures consistent information and community needs are

documented.

TF: This is feasible to accomplish with funding and contractor support combined with

local planning team involvement.

LEDP, SCERP,

LRTP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

Ongoing

B/C: After a disaster, FEMA funds become available to repair damaged structures to

their pre-disaster condition. There have been instances where an applicant cannot

prove that damage occurred as a result of the disaster or due to deferred

maintenance/existing condition (FEMA 2020). In attempts to reduce this potential of

ineligibility after a disaster, the Planning Team will create a catalog with images of

the current "pre-disaster conditions" of each jurisdiction’s critical facilities. This

catalog will be reviewed/updated every year or as conditions change, and following

a significant hazard event.

TF: In 2023, Kawerak received a grant from DOT to administer Futurity IT’s Orion

software in the region. This software will catalogue each community’s critical

facilities and serve as an automated tool for FEMA post-disaster reporting.

LEDP, SCERP,

Strategic Plan

Ongoing

B/C: This project would remove threatened structures from hazard areas, eliminating

future damage while keeping land clear for perpetuity.

TF: This project is feasible with funding to elevate/relocate structures. Acquiring

contractor expertise would be required.

LEDP, LRTP,

LUP, Strategic

Plan

Executive Summary- 24

VOS

Responsible

Dept

KINC, NVC,

VOS

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Potential

Funding

Tribes, BIA

FEMA, NOAA

Tribes, BIA,

FEMA, USDA

Timeframe

Benefits-Costs/ Technical Feasibility

Plan Integration

1-5 years

B/C: Installing sirens would ensure that the community is notified in the event of

incoming severe weather or other hazard events.

TF: This project is technically feasible with the purchase of the sirens and land to

install them. Someone would need to be appointed to regularly test and utilize the

sirens as needed.

LEDP, SCERP,

LRTP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

1-5 years

B/C: This project would inventory use in specific geographic areas to identify a

beneficial area to be shared by community members for subsistence hunting, fishing,

and berry picking and proceed to purchase the property for formal ownership by the

Tribe. Costs would depend on the property value and location. Protection of the

assets and equipment would reduce food security issues.

TF: This project is feasible with community commitment, but maybe politically

difficult to complete.

LEDP, LRTP,

LUP, Strategic

Plan

MH 10

Prohibit construction in identified hazard areas

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes

Ongoing

MH 11

Continue posting observations to the LEO

network to share unusual environmental events.

Increase public awareness of this network to

promote community participation.

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes

Ongoing

MH 12

Assess the quality of drinking water to determine

what contaminants are present

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, EPA,

DEC, NSHC

Ongoing

MH 13

Pursue funding for alternative and renewable

energy (solar or wind)

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

ANTHC,

AVEC, Denali

1-5 years

MH 14

Create a Tribal website to distribute information

related to hazards and disaster preparedness.

KINC, NVC

Tribes,

Kawerak

1-3 years

MH 15

Improve maintenance of the Nome-Council,

Nome-Teller, and Pilgram Roads

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

DOT, Denali

Ongoing

B/C: The community has identified major problem areas which are prone to flooding

and erosion, and has already begun building new facilities away from the shoreline

in higher elevations. Enacting an ordinance or regulation to not build in identified

hazard areas would reduce eventual relocation costs and life/property protection.

TF: This project is technically feasible but would require an ordinance or regulation

to execute. Enforcement may be a challenge.

B/C: The Local Environmental Observer (LEO) Network is a group of local observers

and topic experts who share knowledge about unusual animal, environment, and

weather events. With LEO, observers can connect with others in their community,

share observations, raise awareness, and find answers about significant

environmental events. Observers can also engage with topic experts in many different

organizations and become part of a broader observer community.

TF: This project is ongoing, demonstrating its feasibility. The LEO could be

discussed at the annual hazard meeting to increase public awareness and participation.

B/C: This project would identify and quantify the amount of contaminates present in

the drinking water. Once these are identified, appropriate measures can be

implements to reduce impacts to the population (education, water filters, new

drinking water source).

TF: This project is technically feasible with agency support (EPA, DEC, NSHC) to

complete the sampling and testing.

B/C: Solar and wind are alternative forms of energy that would provide lower cost

power to the Villages. Both have had demonstrated feasibility in the region, but a

feasibility study may need to be completed first to determine the most effective

energy alternative in Nome and the townsites.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for the equipment and feasibility

study.

B/C: A dedicated Tribal website would ensure that Tribal members have a central

location for information from Tribal leadership. Most information is currently shared

through social media pages or through the Kawerak website. A tab for materials

related to hazards and disaster preparedness would give Tribal members all of the

information they are looking for in one location.

TF: This project is technically feasible as Nome Eskimo Community and Village of

Solomon already have websites to distribute information to Tribal members. The

Tribes would likely need assistance in developing and maintaining the website.

B/C: These roads are regularly traveled by residents of Nome and Tribal members to

leave Nome for subsistence activities. Maintaining these roads reduces the potential

of road damages and closures which could strand travelers until the road is repaired.

The Nome-Council Road suffered damage due to Typhoon Merbok, and Tribal

members were stranded in Solomon until the road was repaired and they could safely

return to Nome.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding and contractor support.

Executive Summary- 25

LEDP, SCERP,

LRTP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

NVC

MH 9

Identify and inventory subsistence use camp

locations and equipment to determine if a

community owned (Tribe) property and

equipment should be purchased or allocated for

shared use of community members to reduce

food security issues associated with hazard

related damages to subsistence use camps

Did

not

select

VOS

Did

not

select

NVC

FLD

MH 8

Install warning sirens to alert residents of

incoming hazards or other events. Test sirens

regularly.

KINC

LEDP, LRTP,

LUP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, LRTP,

LUP, Strategic

Plan

NEC

Action Description

KINC

Action

Priority- Townsites

Priority- Nome Area/General

Potential

Funding

Timeframe

MH 16

Improve maintenance of the Solomon cemetery

VOS

Tribe, BIA,

FEMA

Ongoing

MH 17

Improve maintenance of

wastewater treatment facility

VOS

Tribe, BIA,

FEMA, Denali,

ANTHC

1-5 years

MH 18

Improve maintenance of the Solomon B&B

building

VOS

Tribe, BIA,

FEMA, HUD

Ongoing

MH 19

Educate the community about climate change

and how it affects our Tribe and our future.

VOS

Tribe, FEMA,

Kawerak

Ongoing

MH 20

Explore community-wide initiatives for fish

habitat restoration, pollution control measures,

and disaster preparedness.

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

BIA, HUD,

DHS&EM,

NOAA

Ongoing

MH 21

Create youth and elder environmental

ambassadors who can speak and educate

community and others on environmental

conditions in and around Nome and the historic

townsites.

Did

not

select

Did

not

select

KINC, VOS

Tribes, BIA,

Kawerak

1-3 years

MH 22

Relocate NJUS power lines that are located in the

floodplain or in danger from erosion

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

NJUS, Denali

1-5 years

MH 23

Relocate subsistence cabins at Woolley Lagoon

KINC

Tribe, FEMA,

Denali

1-10 years

MH 24

Build an evacuation/safety shelter in Council

NVC

Tribe, FEMA,

HUD

1-10 years

the

Solomon

Benefits-Costs/ Technical Feasibility

B/C: The Solomon cemetery holds cultural and sacred significance to Tribal

members. The cemetery is in need of regular maintenance, such as repairing crosses

and remarking graves. Protecting this site will ensure that the remains of ancestors

are protected for years to come.

TF: This project is feasible with funding for maintenance. Acquiring contractor

expertise would be required.

B/C: The wastewater treatment facility is a critical piece of infrastructure in Solomon

which allows for proper operations of the Solomon BnB. Maintenance of this facility

will ensure that the BnB is able to run smoothly and not close due to immediate repair,

increasing the economic development of the Tribe.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for maintenance and an

experienced contractor.

B/C: The Solomon B&B is a form of income and is an important asset to the Tribe.

Maintaining this facility ensures that business does not have to halt for repairs.

TF: This project is ongoing, demonstrating is feasibility.

B/C: Alaska is seeing rapid changes due to climate change. Increasing public

awareness of the impacts it has on the future of rural Alaska will ensure that the public

takes actions to protect their land and livelihoods. Solomon participated in the Nome

Tribal Climate Adaptation Plan in 2017.

TF: This project is technically feasible through public flyers or discussions at the

annual hazard information meeting. Public involvement during an update of the

Tribal Climate Adaptation Plan would also increase public awareness of climate

change.

B/C: This muti-pronged project aims at increasing public outreach and education on

important initiatives of fish habitat restoration, pollution control, and overall disaster

preparedness.

TF: This project is technically feasible with proper funding and agency support. This

may be able to be accomplished through public flyers or discussions at the annual

hazard information meeting.

B/C: Creating youth and elder ambassadors increases public awareness of

environmental conditions by ensuring that the elders’ local knowledge is shared and

preserved while gaining the valuable perspectives of the youth that have a different

perception of the world and different priorities.

TF: This project is technically feasible with community support and participation.

B/C: Relocating the powerlines that are susceptible to impacts from flooding and

erosion would reduce future power outages during these events.

TF: This project is technically feasible, but would require coordination and support

from NJUS.

B/C: Woolley Lagoon, situated along the Bering Sea shoreline north of Nome, is a

cultural site for the King Island Native Community. Tribal members travel here for

subsistence and community activities. As it is near the shoreline, subsistence cabins

are threatened by flooding and erosion. Relocating these cabins would ensure that

Tribal members can continue to come here for years to come.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for relocation and an experienced

contractor.

B/C: While Council does not have a year-round population, some Tribal members go

there in the summer for subsistence activities. There is not a dedicated evacuation/

safety shelter for people to use in the event of a hazard event or disaster.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for the shelter. A location away

from identified hazard areas should be selected.

Executive Summary- 26

Plan Integration

Responsible

Dept

VOS

NVC

FLD

VOS

LEDP, LUP,

TCAP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

NVC

KINC

NEC

Action Description

Priority- Townsites

Action

Priority- Nome Area/General

LEDP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, LUP,

TCAP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, SCERP,

LUP, Strategic

Plan

MH 26

Promote climate adaptation resiliency planning

by regularly updating the Nome Tribal Climate

Adaptation Plan (TCAP)

Potential

Funding

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

USACE, DOT,

MARAD,

Denali

1-10 years

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA,

ACCAP,

Denali

1-5 years

Timeframe

MH 27

Pursue funding to develop a Debris Management

Plan to identify resources available to support

post hazard event debris removal

Did

not

select

KINC, NVC,

VOS

Tribes, BIA,

FEMA,

DHS&EM

1-5 years

MH 28

Plant a community garden to provide fresh

vegetables to the community

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA,

USDA

1-5 years

MH 29

Develop a seed catalog/bank to increase food

sovereignty

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA,

USDA

1-5 years

MH 30

Increase food sovereignty by increasing public

education about berries/tea/edible plants and

ways to restore these resources

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA,

USDA

Ongoing

MH 31

Pursue food sovereignty projects not dependent

on electricity (cold storage)

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA,

USDA

Ongoing

EQ 1

Inspect, prioritize, and retrofit any critical facility

or public infrastructure that does not meet current

State Adopted Building Codes.

Did

not

select

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, HUD

FEMA

EQ 2

Install non-structural seismic restraints for large

furniture such as bookcases, filing cabinets,

heavy televisions, and appliances to prevent

toppling damage and resultant injuries to small

children, elderly, and pets.

Did

not

select

Did

not

select

KINC, NVC,

VOS

Tribes, HUD

FEMA

Benefits-Costs/ Technical Feasibility

B/C: A seawall is a structure built parallel to the shoreline to protect inland areas from

coastal erosion and wave action. Seawalls can also be used to prevent flooding and

overtopping caused by storm surges and waves. A seawall protecting Nome and Fort

Davis would reduce the potential of infrastructure damage, loss of life, and loss of

cultural/sacred sites during future storm events.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding and agency support.

B/C: In 2017, the Nome Eskimo Community, in collaboration with the Alaska Center

for Climate Assessment and Policy (ACCAP), developed a climate adaptation plan

with the Nome-based tribes, including King Island, Council, and Solomon. The

project goals were to familiarize tribal members with climate science and local

knowledge, provide an opportunity to identify and discuss climate impacts and

adaptation strategies, develop a plan, and share information with other rural Alaska

and Native communities. This project was funded by BIA.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding and contractor support to update

the plan.

B/C: Debris management plans are an essential disaster management tool than are

focused on coordinated planning that enables effective damage abatement and

ensures proper attention is assigned to reduce losses, damage, and materials

management.

TF: This action is feasible with limited fund expenditures but may require a contractor

to develop the plan.

B/C: This project aims to increase food sovereignty in Nome and the townsites by

allowing the community to grow their own food rather than be reliant on shipments,

which can be delayed or halted during severe weather or disasters.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for the garden and community

support.

B/C: Climate change is altering the quality and quantity of berries and other plants in

Alaska. A seed catalog/bank would create an inventory of seed samples to keep

reserves or future planting, protecting the biodiversity of the region. The seed bank

acts as insurance for future generations.

TF: This project is technically feasible with proper funding to develop the catalog

and proper storage (vault). The seed bank on Svalbard in Norway is a great example,

on a national scale.

B/C: This projects aims at increasing public awareness of these resources and educate

the community about ways to restore these resources.

TF: This project is technically feasible through public flyers or discussions at the

annual hazard information meeting.

B/C: Storing processed meat and other foods in ice cellars in the permafrost will

ensure that the food does not spoil during power outages.

TF: This project is technically feasible, but as permafrost thaws, cold storage/ice

cellars may not be feasible.

Plan Integration

LEDP, LUP,

Strategic Plan,

LRTP

LEDP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, SCERP,

LRTP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, TCCAP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

Ongoing

B/C: This project would ensure that the Tribes’ critical facilities are prepared for a

potential major earthquake and are brought up to code.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for an inspector and funding to

complete retrofitting.

LEDP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

1-3 years

B/C: This lower cost project may help protect residents from injuries during a

potential major earthquake.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for the restraints.

LEDP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

Executive Summary- 27

Responsible

Dept

Pursue funding to build a seawall around Nome,

including Fort Davis

VOS

MH 25

NVC

FLD

VOS

NVC

KINC

NEC

Action Description

Priority- Townsites

Action

Priority- Nome Area/General

Maintain the Solomon weather station and

continue to collect environmental measurements

TF 1

Establish an air quality monitoring system to

monitor air quality during wildfire season

TF 2

Develop, adopt, and enforce burn ordinances for

burn permits, campfire restrictions, and outdoor

burning controls to guide burning practices and

potentially eliminate human caused wildland

fires.

Did

not

select

Did

not

select

Did

not

select

TF 3

Create a firebreak surrounding the Council

townsite

TF 4

Communicate and educate residents about

creating defensible safe surrounding critical

facilities/homes to prevent fire spread

Did

not

select

CS 1

Map the location of permafrost and slope

stability throughout the community

Potential

Funding

KINC, NVC,

VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

Denali

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA,

FEMA, HUD<

Denali

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, HUD

FEMA, Denali,

BSRHA

Timeframe

Benefits-Costs/ Technical Feasibility

Plan Integration

1-5 years

B/C: Implementing this mitigation project would allow for better management of

snow removal and help prevent disruptions due to heavy buildups of blown snow.

TF: This project should be feasible for the community and should not require much

expertise beyond some construction knowledge and identifying where the fences

would be the most beneficial. There are concerns regarding the feasibility of snow

fences in Nome.

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

1-5 years

B/C: Blowing snow and blizzards have created issues for winter travel. Establishing

better trail markers may aid winter travelers and reduce injuries. The selected markers

should not create secondary safety hazards to ATVs and snowmobiles.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for the markers.

LEDP, LUP,

LRTP, Strategic

Plan

Ongoing

B/C: Homes and facilities in Nome, King Island, Council, and Solomon are regularly

impacted by heaving snow and high winds. Ensuring that roofs are secure, and homes

have proper insulation will benefit the community and protect infrastructure.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding. A contractor/building inspector

may be required for snow load capacity and insulation installation.

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, SCERP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA

Ongoing

VOS

Tribe, NOAA

Ongoing

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribe, EPA,

FEMA, USDA,

DOF

1-5 years

Did

not

select

VOS

Tribe

1-5 years

NVC

Tribe, DOF,

USDA, FEMA

1-5 years

Responsible

Dept

KINC, NVC,

VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

Kawerak

Ongoing

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribe, NOAA,

NSF, UAF,

Denali

1-10 years

B/C: Winter travel safety is a high priority for the Planning Team. Residents have

been seriously injured, killed, and have gone missing due to dangerous travel

conditions. Educating the community and youth would hopefully reduce the number

of incidents.

TF: This project is technically feasible with existing Tribal resources.

B/C: Maintaining this weather station ensures continued accurate weather data in

Solomon.

TF: This project is ongoing, demonstrating its feasibility,

B/C: Reduced air quality from distance wild/tundra fires poses a public health

concern for residents. Establishing an air quality monitoring system would alert

residents when extra precautions need to be taken due to poor air quality.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for the monitoring equipment

and agency support.

B/C: This project aims at reducing the number of unpermitted fires and burns which

may ignite a fire.

TF: This project is technically feasible, but would require adoption by the Tribal

Council. Implementation in Nome may be difficult without support from the City of

Nome.

B/C: Firebreaks act as defensive lines, preventing the fire from crossing and reaching

vulnerable areas, such as homes or infrastructure. By creating these breaks,

firefighters gain better control over the fire's movement, allowing them to focus their

efforts on containing and extinguishing it.

TF: This project is technically feasible with agency support.

B/C: A defensible space, in the context of fire control, is a natural and/or landscaped

area around a structure that has been maintained and designed to reduce fire danger

or spread. The practice is sometimes called firescaping.

TF: This project is technically feasible through public flyers or discussions at the

annual hazard information meeting.

B/C: Permafrost distribution has been mapped in Alaska (Jorgenson et al. 2008 and

SNAP- Northern Climate Reports), however, with the rapidly changing conditions in

Alaska, the Planning Team would like to pursue funding for an updated distribution

study and mapping project. Additionally, the Planning Team wants to pursue funding

to map the slope stability in Nome and historical townsites as they are changing due

to melting permafrost.

TF: This project is technically feasible with agency support and funding for the

mapping.

Executive Summary- 28

LEDP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, LUP,

LRTP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, LUP,

LRTP, Strategic

Plan, TCAP

SW 5

VOS

SW 4

Educate community members on winter travel

safety and proper preparedness, to mitigate

dangers of thinning ice cover in the winter.

NVC

SW 3

Ensure homes and facilities have properly

secured roofing and insulation to protect from

heavy snow, high winds, and extreme cold. If

necessary, retrofit buildings to prevent roof

collapse from heavy snow buildups.

VOS

FLD

SW 2

Create and install new trail markers to aid

travelers during blizzards and other severe

weather events. Ensure selected markers do not

cause secondary safety hazards to ATVs and

snowmachines

Did

not

select

NVC

SW 1

Install snow fences in the community to limit

impacts of blowing snow during blizzards and

other severe winter weather events by allowing it

to catch and collect in specified locations.

KINC

Action Description

NEC

Action

Priority- Townsites

Priority- Nome Area/General

1-10 years

Did

not

select

VOS

Tribe, FEMA,

EPA, DGGS,

DEC

Ongoing

KINC, NVC,

VOS

Tribes, EPA,

FEMA, DGGS,

DHS&EM,

Ongoing

KINC, NVC,

VOS

Tribes, EPA,

FEMA, DGGS

Ongoing

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

DGGS, Denali

1-5 years

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, EPA,

Kawerak

1-3 years

RA 1

Purchase radon testing kits to monitor radon

levels in critical facilities and homes

N/A

Did

not

select

Did

not

select

Did

not

select

RA 2

Provide radon information to public to reduce

human health effects of radon exposure

N/A

RA 3

Evaluate new community development to protect

residential construction from radon impacts

N/A

FLD 1

Assess critical facility elevation and elevate any

critical facilities to meet the recommended

building elevation determined in the Nome

FIRMs or historically flooded depths

FLD 2

Develop or update a watershed protection plan

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

NOAA, AEC

1-5 years

B/C: Nome, King Island, Council, and Solomon are in an area with discontinuous

permafrost. As permafrost melt is increasing due to rising global temperatures,

structures built on permafrost are beginning to sink and crack. Relocating or elevating

the structures into the bedrock would ensure that the structure is not exposed to further

permafrost impacts.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for relocation and may require a

contractor. A more resilient location away from melting permafrost would need to be

selected. If the Tribe decided to elevate the structure rather than relocation, an

experienced contractor would be required.

B/C: This low cost project will quantify radon levels in critical facilities and homes.

TF: This project is technically feasible with the funding for the testing kits. Agencies

regularly give out free testing kits during the year. DGGS requests that results of

radon tests are submitted to their database to better understand radon levels in Alaska.

More information can be found here:

https://dggs.alaska.gov/hazards/radon.html#:~:text=This%20project%20began%20

with%20funding,Conservation%2C%20Division%20of%20Air%20Quality.

B/C: Prior to the development of this HMP, the majority of Planning Team was not

aware of the radon concerns in the Nome Area, and therefore, it is likely that the

general public is not aware either. This public outreach activity aims to increase

public awareness of radon and actions to take to reduce future impacts.

TF: This project is technically feasible through public flyers or discussions at the

annual hazard information meeting.

B/C: With increased mining and development in the Nome area, this project would

evaluate this new development to quantify the amount of radon in the underlying

ground and potential impacts of its release when exposed to the air.

TF: This project is technically feasible with agency support.

B/C: The City of Nome participates in NFIP, and therefore, has completed FIRM

maps that provides information on recommended base flood elevations. Elevating or

relocating the critical facilities that do not meet this elevation would reduce future

losses in the event of the 1% annual flood. For Council and Solomon, they do not

have completed flood mapping, and base flood elevations could be determined off

historical flood depths.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding to elevate the facilities that do

not meet the recommended building elevation of elevation of historical floods in the

townsites.

B/C: A watershed protection plan (WPP) is a document designed to encourage current

and future protection of water resources that are not impaired.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for plan development. This plan

could be developed as a collaborative plan as Council, White Mountain, and Golovin

have watershed alliance.

B/C: Currently, there are no communities along the west coast of Alaska that have

formal tsunami inundation mapping. It is believed that the Bering Sea/Norton Sound

is too shallow to allow for tsunami propagation. However, paleotsunami studies

conducted in this region demonstrate that significant tsunamis have occurred in this

region in the past, and, therefore, can occur in the future (Medvedeva et al. 2023).

Additionally, traditional knowledge in the region has disproved that tsunamis have

not occurred in this region. Having formal tsunami inundation completed will

visualize how a tsunami would propagate and impact Nome and Solomon.

TF: This project is technically feasible with assistance from the Alaska Earthquake

Center through a NOAA grant. Selected communities are not required to match any

grant funds.

Executive Summary- 29

Plan Integration

LEDP, LUP,

TCAP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, LUP,

TCAP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

Benefits-Costs/ Technical Feasibility

Timeframe

Potential

Funding

Tribe, FEMA,

BIA, HUD,

BSRHA,

Denali

CS 2

Request tsunami inundation mapping to

determine if tsunamis pose a threat to Nome

(including Woolley Lagoon) and Solomon

Responsible

Dept

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Elevate or relocate facilities that are built on

permafrost that are beginning to sink

TS 1

VOS

NVC

FLD

VOS

NVC

KINC

NEC

Action Description

Priority- Townsites

Action

Priority- Nome Area/General

ER 1

Monitor Nome beach elevation to help identify

whether and when infrastructure may become

exposed to erosion

ER 2

Purse funding to add erosion protection at

Woolley Lagoon

ER 3

Protect Nome Tribal cemetery from erosion

ER 4

Protect Solomon Tribal cemetery from erosion

LS 1

Pursue funding to install landslide monitoring

equipment at the landslide location at Salmon

Lake

LS 2

Pursue funding to install landslide monitoring

equipment on King Island

LS 3

Pursue funding for a slope stabilization study at

the Solomon cemetery

LS 4

Pursue funding to install landslide monitoring

equipment at Solomon cemetery

Ongoing

KINC

Tribes, FEMA,

USACE,

Denali

1-10 years

NEC

Tribe, FEMA,

BIA, DOI,

Denali

1-10 years

VOS

Tribe, FEMA,

BIA, DOI,

Denali

1-10 years

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,

NSF, NOAA,

DGGS

1-5 years

KINC

Tribe, FEMA,

NSF, NOAA,

DGGS

1-5 years

VOS

Tribe, FEMA,

NSF, NOAA,

DGGS

1-5 years

VOS

Tribe, FEMA,

NSF, NOAA,

DGGS

1-5 years

Benefits-Costs/ Technical Feasibility

B/C: The erosion forecast method used by Buzard et al. (2021) could not forecast

erosion rates in Nome due to the relatively stable erosion trends and the extensive

protection structures in place. The authors suggested this project to be able to forecast

future erosion rates in the community.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for the monitoring equipment

and local training for residents.

B/C: Woolley Lagoon is a cultural and sacred site for King Island tribal members and

is used for subsistence activities in the summer. It is situated along the Bering Sea

shoreline, north of Nome, and is threatened by erosion impacts. Adding erosion

protection would protect this sacred site for generations to come.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding and agency support.

B/C: The Nome Tribal cemetery holds cultural and sacred significance to Tribal

members. It is currently threatened by erosion. Protecting this site will ensure that the

remains of ancestors are protected for years to come.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding to implement the most effective

erosion protection.

B/C: The Solomon cemetery holds cultural and sacred significance to Tribal

members. It is currently threatened by erosion. Protecting this site will ensure that the

remains of ancestors are protected for years to come.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding to implement the most effective

erosion protection.

B/C: Currently, there is no method of monitoring slope stability near Salmon Lake.

Installing monitoring equipment could help detect a potential landslide early and give

the community warning before the event.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for the monitoring equipment.

B/C: Currently, there is no method of monitoring slope stability of King Island.

Installing monitoring equipment could help detect a potential landslide early and give

the community warning before the event.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for the monitoring equipment.

B/C: A slope stability study will determine how much stress a slope can endure before

collapsing. Once the slope stability at the cemetery is known, proper stabilization

techniques can be completed.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for the study.

B/C: Currently, there is no method of monitoring slope stability at the Solomon

cemetery. Installing monitoring equipment could help detect a potential landslide

early and give the community warning before the event.

TF: This project is technically feasible with funding for the monitoring equipment.

Plan Integration: LEDP: Local Economic Development Plan, LUP: Land Use Plan, LRTP: Long Rang Transportation Plan, TCAP: Tribal Climate Adaptation Plan

Executive Summary- 30

Plan Integration

LEDP, TCAP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, LUP,

TCAP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

Timeframe

Tribes, FEMA,

NSF, NOAA,

DGGS, Denali

Potential

Funding

NEC, KINC,

NVC, VOS

Responsible

Dept

VOS

NVC

FLD

VOS

NVC

KINC

NEC

Action Description

Priority- Townsites

Action

Priority- Nome Area/General

LEDP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

LEDP, Strategic

Plan

LEDP, LUP,

Strategic Plan

FEMA APPROVAL LETTER

April 16, 2025

The Honorable Heather Payenna

King Island Native Community

P.O. Box 682

Nome, Alaska 99762

Dear Chief Payenna:

Congratulations, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s, Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) Region 10, Mitigation Division has determined the Nome Area Tribes including

the Nome Eskimo Community, King Island Native Community, Native Village of Council, and the

Village of Solomon 2025 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan meets the requirements of

Title 44 in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 44 § 201.7 as a tribal hazard

mitigation plan and is approved for the King Island Native Community.

The plan approval ensures the King Island Native Community eligibility for project grants under

FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

(HMGP). This plan also ensures eligibility for post-disaster assistance including Public Assistance

(Categories C-G) and Fire Management Assistance Grants (FMAG). All requests for funding are

evaluated individually according to eligibility and other program requirements.

FEMA’s approval is for a period of five years, effective the date that FEMA received the adoption

documentation. For this plan, documentation was received on February 20, 2025, and is considered

approved as of that date. Prior to February 19, 2030, the King Island Native Community must

review, revise, and submit their plan to FEMA for approval to maintain eligibility for grant funding.

The enclosed plan review tool provides additional recommendations to incorporate into future

updates.

If you have questions regarding the planning or review process, please contact the FEMA Region 10

Planning Team at FEMA-R10-MT_Planning@fema.dhs.gov. Additionally, the FEMA Region 10

Tribal Relations Specialist at FEMA-R10-Tribal@fema.dhs.gov is available to facilitate additional

discussions on the delivery of FEMA’s programs.

Sincerely,

Vincent J. Maykovich

Regional Administrator, Acting

Enclosure

www.fema.gov

April 16, 2025

The Honorable Chase Gray

Native Village of Council

P.O. Box 2050

Nome, Alaska 99762

Dear Chairman Gray:

Congratulations, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s, Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) Region 10, Mitigation Division has determined the Nome Area Tribes including

the Nome Eskimo Community, King Island Native Community, Native Village of Council, and the

Village of Solomon 2025 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan meets the requirements of

Title 44 in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 44 § 201.7 as a tribal hazard

mitigation plan and is approved for the Native Village of Council.

The plan approval ensures the Native Village of Council eligibility for project grants under FEMA’s

Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

This plan also ensures eligibility for post-disaster assistance including Public Assistance (Categories

C-G) and Fire Management Assistance Grants (FMAG). All requests for funding are evaluated

individually according to eligibility and other program requirements.

FEMA’s approval is for a period of five years, effective the date that FEMA received the adoption

documentation. For this plan, documentation was received on February 20, 2025, and is considered

approved as of that date. Prior to February 19, 2030, the Native Village of Council must review,

revise, and submit their plan to FEMA for approval to maintain eligibility for grant funding. The

enclosed plan review tool provides additional recommendations to incorporate into future updates.

If you have questions regarding the planning or review process, please contact the FEMA Region 10

Planning Team at FEMA-R10-MT_Planning@fema.dhs.gov. Additionally, the FEMA Region 10

Tribal Relations Specialist at FEMA-R10-Tribal@fema.dhs.gov is available to facilitate additional

discussions on the delivery of FEMA’s programs.

Sincerely,

Vincent J. Maykovich

Regional Administrator, Acting

Enclosure

www.fema.gov

April 16, 2025

The Honorable Edna Baker

Nome Eskimo Community

P.O. 1090

Nome, Alaska 99762

Dear President Baker:

Congratulations, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s, Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) Region 10, Mitigation Division has determined the Nome Area Tribes including

the Nome Eskimo Community, King Island Native Community, Native Village of Council, and the

Village of Solomon 2025 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan meets the requirements of

Title 44 in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 44 § 201.7 as a tribal hazard

mitigation plan and is approved for the Nome Eskimo Community.

The plan approval ensures the Nome Eskimo Community eligibility for project grants under

FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

(HMGP). This plan also ensures eligibility for post-disaster assistance including Public Assistance

(Categories C-G) and Fire Management Assistance Grants (FMAG). All requests for funding are

evaluated individually according to eligibility and other program requirements.

FEMA’s approval is for a period of five years, effective the date that FEMA received the adoption

documentation. For this plan, documentation was received on February 20, 2025, and is considered

approved as of that date. Prior to February 19, 2030, the Nome Eskimo Community must review,

revise, and submit their plan to FEMA for approval to maintain eligibility for grant funding. The

enclosed plan review tool provides additional recommendations to incorporate into future updates.

If you have questions regarding the planning or review process, please contact the FEMA Region 10

Planning Team at FEMA-R10-MT_Planning@fema.dhs.gov. Additionally, the FEMA Region 10

Tribal Relations Specialist at FEMA-R10-Tribal@fema.dhs.gov is available to facilitate additional

discussions on the delivery of FEMA’s programs.

Sincerely,

Vincent J. Maykovich

Regional Administrator, Acting

Enclosure

www.fema.gov

April 16, 2025

The Honorable Kirsten Timbers

Village of Solomon

P.O. Box 2053

Nome, Alaska 99762

Dear Chairman Timbers:

Congratulations, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s, Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) Region 10, Mitigation Division has determined the Nome Area Tribes including

the Nome Eskimo Community, King Island Native Community, Native Village of Council, and the

Village of Solomon 2025 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan meets the requirements of

Title 44 in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 44 § 201.7 as a tribal hazard

mitigation plan and is approved for the Village of Solomon.

The plan approval ensures the Village of Solomon eligibility for project grants under FEMA’s

Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs including the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

This plan also ensures eligibility for post-disaster assistance including Public Assistance (Categories

C-G) and Fire Management Assistance Grants (FMAG). All requests for funding are evaluated

individually according to eligibility and other program requirements.

FEMA’s approval is for a period of five years, effective the date that FEMA received the adoption

documentation. For this plan, documentation was received on February 20, 2025, and is considered

approved as of that date. Prior to February 19, 2030, the Village of Solomon must review, revise,

and submit their plan to FEMA for approval to maintain eligibility for grant funding. The enclosed

plan review tool provides additional recommendations to incorporate into future updates.

If you have questions regarding the planning or review process, please contact the FEMA Region 10

Planning Team at FEMA-R10-MT_Planning@fema.dhs.gov. Additionally, the FEMA Region 10

Tribal Relations Specialist at FEMA-R10-Tribal@fema.dhs.gov is available to facilitate additional

discussions on the delivery of FEMA’s programs.

Sincerely,

Vincent J. Maykovich

Regional Administrator, Acting

Enclosure

www.fema.gov

PLAN DISTRIBUTION LIST

The Nome Area Tribes 2025 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is distributed to:

•

Nome Eskimo Community

King Island Native Community

Native Village of Council

Village of Solomon

Kawerak, Inc.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

State of Alaska Division of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA), Department of Homeland

Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM)

RECORD OF CHANGES

Hazard Mitigation Plans should be continually updated as circumstances change, new data becomes

available, hazards are mitigated, etc. This Record of Changes Table is included to summarize and document

changes to this document as they are made throughout time.

Change ID

Description of Changes

Date

Created a Multi-Jurisdictional HMP for the Tribes in the Nome area,

including the Nome Eskimo Community, King Island Native

Community, Native Village of Council, and the Village of Solomon

December 2024/January

2025

SECTION ONE

PLAN INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

1. PLAN INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Hazard mitigation planning is required under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) which

identified the need for Tribal, Local, and State jurisdictions to coordinate mitigation planning and

implement mitigation efforts. It also provided the legal basis for the Federal Emergency Management

Agency’s (FEMA) mitigation plan requirements for mitigation grant assistance.

1.1

PURPOSE

Disasters may cause loss of life, damage buildings and infrastructure, and have devastating effects on a

community’s economic, social, and environmental well-being. The Nome Area Tribes intend to reduce or

eliminate the long-term risk to life and property from hazards by implementing a Hazard Mitigation Plan.

The Plan is intended to reduce community risk and promote long-term sustainability by:

•

1.2

Protecting the public and preventing loss of life and injury.

Reducing harm to existing and future community assets.

Preventing damage to a community’s cultural, economic, and environmental assets.

Minimize downtime and speed up recovery following disasters.

Reducing the costs of disaster response and recovery and the exposure of first responders to risk.

Help accomplish other community objectives, such as leveraging capital improvements,

infrastructure protection, and economic resiliency.

MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN LAYOUT

DESCRIPTION

The Nome Area Tribes 2025 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) consists of the

following sections and appendices:

•

Executive Summary

Provides information to meet Element H- Additional State Requirements. Provides general history

and background for each Village, including historical trends for population, the demographic and

economic conditions that have shaped the area, as well as the government and leadership within

the Tribes. Lists hazards that impact the planning area, critical facilities, and prioritized Mitigation

Action Plan (MAP).

•

Section 1- Introduction and Background

Defines what a hazard mitigation plan is and its purpose.

•

Section 2- Planning Process

Describes the planning process for the MJHMP, identifies Planning Team members, lists the

meetings held as part of the planning process, and lists the key stakeholders within the surrounding

area. This section documents public outreach activities performed by the Tribes (support documents

are in Appendix D); including document reviews and relevant plans, reports, and other appropriate

information data utilized for MJHMP development.

•

Section 3- Risk Assessment/Hazard Analysis/Summary of Vulnerability

Describes the process through which the Planning Team identified, screened, and selected the

hazards for profiling in this MJHMP. The hazard analysis includes the nature of the hazard,

previous occurrences (history), location, extent, and impact of past events, and future event

recurrence probability for each hazard. The influence of climate change is also discussed within

each hazard profile.

1-1

SECTION ONE

PLAN INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

Identifies the Tribes’ potentially vulnerable assets—people, critical facilities, critical infrastructure,

and residential and non-residential buildings (where available). The resulting information identifies

the full range of hazards that the community could face and the potential damages, economic losses,

and social impacts. Land use and development trends are also discussed.

•

Section 4- Mitigation Strategy

Defines the Tribes’ mitigation strategy which provides a blueprint for reducing the potential losses

identified in the vulnerability analysis. This section lists the community’s policies, programs,

available resources, and governmental authorities.

The Planning Team developed a list of specific mitigation goals and potential actions to address

the risks facing each Village. Mitigation actions include structural projects, emergency services,

natural resource protection strategies, property protection techniques, preventive initiatives, and

public information and awareness activities.

•

Section 5- Plan Maintenance

Describes the formal Plan maintenance process to ensure that the MJHMP remains an active and

applicable document. This section includes an explanation of how the Tribes’ Planning Team

intends to organize their efforts to ensure that improvements and revisions to the MJHMP occur in

an efficient, well-managed, and coordinated manner, actions that the Tribes plans to implement to

assure continued public participation, and their methods and schedule for keeping the plan current.

•

Section 6- Plan Update

This section describes hazard events that have occurred and changes in development, changes in

mitigation priorities, and describes how the mitigation plan was integrated into other planning

mechanisms.

•

Section 7- Plan Adoption

Describes the Tribes’ adoption process of the MJHMP. Supporting documentation can be found in

Appendix C.

•

Section 8- References

Lists reference materials and resources used to prepare this MJHMP.

•

Section 9- Appendices

Appendix A: Delineates federal, state, and other potential mitigation funding sources. This section

will aid the Tribes with researching and applying for funds to implement their mitigation strategy.

Appendix B: Provides the FEMA Tribal Mitigation Plan Review Tool, which documents

compliance with FEMA criteria.

Appendix C: Provides the Tribes’ adoption resolutions.

Appendix D: Provides public outreach information, including newsletters and survey.

1-2

SECTION TWO

PLANNING PROCESS

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

2. PLANNING PROCESS

This section provides an overview of the planning process; identifies the key stakeholders and Planning

Team members, documents public outreach efforts, and summarizes the review and incorporation of

existing plans, studies, and reports used to develop this MJHMP. Meeting information regarding the

Planning Team and public outreach efforts are included below and outreach support documents are provided

in Appendix D.

This section addresses a portion of Element A of the Tribal Mitigation Plan regulation checklist.

Regulation Checklist- 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 201.7 Tribal Mitigation Plans

ELEMENT A. Planning Process

A1. Does the plan document the planning process, including how it was prepared and who was involved in the process? [44

CFR § 201.7(c)(1)]

A2. Does the plan document an opportunity for public comment during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval, including

a description of how the tribal government defined “public”? [44 CFR § 201.7(c)(1)(i)]

A3. Does the plan document, as appropriate, an opportunity for neighboring communities, tribal and regional agencies involved

in hazard mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development as well as other interests to be involved

in the planning process? [44 CFR § 201.7(c)(1)(ii)]

A4. Does the plan describe the review and incorporation of existing plans, studies, and reports? [44 CFR § 201.7(c)(1)(iii)]

A5. Does the plan include a discussion on how the planning process was integrated, to the extent possible, with other ongoing

tribal planning efforts as well as other FEMA programs and initiatives? [44 CFR § 201.7(c)(1)(iv)]

Source: FEMA 2017 (Tribal)

2.1

OVERVIEW

Kawerak Inc. (Kawerak) received a project grant from Bureau of Indian Affairs to fund Tribal Hazard

Mitigation Plans in the region. Kawerak contracted Fairweather Science, LLC (Fairweather Science) to

facilitate the Plan developments.

This MJHMP follows the following guidance for mitigation planning:

•

FEMA 2019 Tribal Mitigation Planning Handbook, which is a companion to the Tribal Mitigation

Plan Review Guide, released by FEMA in 2017.

State of Alaska DHS&EM Element H- Additional State Requirements, Effective April 1, 2024.

The planning process began in February 2024 with the formation of the Planning Team with members from

each Tribe.

The Kickoff Meeting occurred on February 23, 2024. Representatives from the Nome Eskimo Community,

King Island Native Community, Native Village of Council, Village of Solomon, Kawerak, and Fairweather

Science were in attendance. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the purpose of a HMP, the planning

process, expectations, and the project schedule. There was discussion of critical facilities, hazard

identification and screening, initial ideas for mitigation projects, and opportunities for public involvement.

The Planning Team discussed recent hazard events, including Typhoon Merbok. The Planning Team was

tasked with reviewing a preliminary list of critical facilities to make any edits and provide additional

information, and to share the survey on social media and post flyers in common places in the community.

On May 24, 2024, the Planning Team met to discuss the draft Risk Assessment that they reviewed. The

Planning Team shared feedback on the draft Risk Assessment and strategies for public involvement.

On June 14, 2024, the Planning Team met to develop their mitigation strategy. The Planning Team reviewed

a comprehensive list of potential mitigation actions, selected, and prioritized which actions they wanted to

pursue during the next 5 years.

2-1

SECTION TWO

PLANNING PROCESS

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

On June 26, 2024, the draft risk assessment was made available for public and collaborator review. A link

to the draft risk assessment and public survey were made available on Kawerak’s Emergency Preparedness

website. The Nome Area Tribes then shared this post to their Tribe/community-specific social media

groups.

David Matthews, Senior Management Analyst with HUD’s Alaska Field Office responded that HUD

reviewed the Draft MJHMP and does not have any comments or revisions. No comments were received

from the public.

Charlene Saclamana and James Benzschawel, Emergency Preparedness Program, Alaska Native Tribal

Health Consortium provided comments on the Draft MJHMP with specific edits/addition of critical

facilities, resources/programs utilized by the Tribes, and community profile details.

Samantha Wiser, Program Coordinator, Alaska Earthquake Center provided editorial comments.

Kiminaq Maddy Alvanna-Stimpfle and Heather Payenna of King Island Native Community provided

historical edits to the community profile to more accurately reflect the forced relocation of Ugiuvaŋmiut

from King Island.

In summary, the following five-step process took place from February 2024 through September 2024.

1. Organize resources: members of the Planning Team identified resources needed in the

development of the hazard mitigation plan update- including staff, agencies, and local

community members who could provide technical expertise and historical information.

2. Assess risks: with the assistance of a hazard mitigation planning consultant (Fairweather

Science), the Planning Team identified the hazards specific to each Tribe and the consultant

developed the risk assessment for the identified hazards. The Planning Team reviewed the risk

assessment prior to and during the development of the mitigation strategy.

3. Assess capabilities: the Planning Team reviewed current capabilities to determine whether

existing provisions and requirements adequately addressed relevant hazards. Examples of these

capabilities are administrative and technical, legal, and regulatory, and fiscal.

4. Develop a mitigation strategy: after reviewing the risks posed by each defined hazard, the

Planning Team developed a comprehensive range of potential mitigation goals and actions.

The Planning Team then identified and prioritized the actions for implementation.

5. Monitor, evaluate, and update the Plan: the Planning Team developed a process to monitor the

plan to ensure it was used as intended while fulfilling the needs of the communities. The team

then developed a process to evaluate the plan to compare how their decisions affected

recognized hazard impacts. The Team then outlined a method to share their successes with

members of the community. By sharing their successes, the team aimed to encourage support

for mitigation activities and to provide data for incorporating mitigation actions into existing

planning mechanisms and to provide data for the plans five-year update.

Table 2 describes Planning Team meetings convened to develop this MJHMP.

Table 2- Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Meetings

Date

Agenda

Attendees

Project Kickoff Meeting.

02/23/2024

MJHMP overview; project schedule; roles and

responsibilities, review a list of hazards; initial

suggestions for mitigation projects; current critical

2-2

Nome Area Tribes

Planning Team

Jacob Martin (NEC)

Janice Knowlton (KINC)

Kaitlyn Painter (KINC)

Barb Gray (NVC)

Deilah Johnson (VOS)

SECTION TWO

PLANNING PROCESS

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

Date

Agenda

Attendees

facilities; discussion about community input via an

online survey.

Kevin Knowlton

Fairweather Science

Laura Young

Olivia Kavanaugh

Nome Area Tribes

Planning Team

Review of Draft Risk Assessment.

05/24/2024

Kawerak, Inc.

Review of draft risk assessment and discuss ideas for

mitigation projects.

Kawerak, Inc.

Fairweather Science

Nome Area Tribes

Planning Team

Develop Mitigation Strategy

06/14/2024

Review, select, and prioritize a comprehensive list of

potential mitigation actions.

9/13, 9/26,

9/27,

10/14/2024

Review of Draft HMP with Planning Team Members

and approval for publication for Public Review

Kevin Bahnke (NEC)

Janice Knowlton (KINC)

Heather Payenna (KINC)

Barb Gray (NVC)

Deilah Johnson (VOS)

Kevin Knowlton

Carol Piscoya

Laura Young

Kevin Bahnke (NEC)

Janice Knowlton (KINC)

Heather Payenna (KINC)

Barb Gray (NVC)

Deilah Johnson (VOS)

Kawerak, Inc.

Kevin Knowlton

Fairweather Science

Laura Young

Olivia Kavanaugh

Nome Area Tribes

Planning Team

Kevin Bahnke (NEC)

Janice Knowlton (KINC)

Heather Payenna (KINC)

Barb Gray (NVC)

Deilah Johnson (VOS)

Kawerak, Inc.

Kevin Knowlton

Fairweather Science

Laura Young

Olivia Kavanaugh

NEC: Nome Eskimo Community, KINC: King Island Native Community, NVC: Native Village of Council, VOS: Village of Solomon

2.2

HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING TEAM

Table 3 identifies the complete hazard mitigation Planning Team.

Table 3- Hazard Mitigation Planning Team

Name

Title

Organization

Key Input

Kevin “Humpy” Bahnke

Secretary/Treasurer

Nome Eskimo

Community

Nome planning team lead, data input, and MJHMP

review.

Jacob Martin

Vice President

Nome Eskimo

Community

Nome planning team member, data input, and MJHMP

review.

Heather Payenna

Tribal Chief

King Island Native

Community

King Island planning team lead, data input, and

MJHMP review.

Janice Knowlton

Tribal Coordinator

King Island Native

Community

King Island planning team member, data input, and

MJHMP review.

2-3

SECTION TWO

PLANNING PROCESS

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

Table 3- Hazard Mitigation Planning Team

Name

Title

Organization

Kaitlyn Painter

Tribal Member

King Island Native

Community

King Island planning team member, data input, and

MJHMP review.

Leona Mayac

Council Member

King Island Native

Community

King Island planning team member, data input, and

MJHMP review.

Barb Gray

Tribal Administrator

Native Village of

Council

Council planning team lead, data input, and MJHMP

review.

Rhonda West

Tribal Coordinator

Native Village of

Council

Council planning team member, data input, and

MJHMP review.

Nina Hanebuth

Tribal Member

Native Village of

Council

Council planning team member, data input, and

MJHMP review.

Kirsten Timbers

Tribal President

Village of Solomon

Solomon planning team member, data input, and

MJHMP review.

Sherri Lewis

Tribal Coordinator

Village of Solomon

Solomon planning team member, data input, and

MJHMP review.

Deilah Johnson

Environmental

Coordinator/Grant

Writer/Council Member

Village of Solomon

Solomon planning team member, data input, and

MJHMP review.

Kevin Knowlton

Emergency Preparedness

Specialist

Kawerak, Inc.

Project Manager, responsible for project coordination.

Laura Young

Project Manager, Hazard

Mitigation Planner

Fairweather

Science, LLC

Responsible for project management/ coordination,

subject matter expertise in plan development, and

MJHMP review.

Olivia Kavanaugh

Staff Scientist, Hazard

Mitigation Planner

Fairweather

Science, LLC

Responsible for MJHMP development, writer,

research, and data analysis.

2.3

Key Input

OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATORS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

TO PARTICIPATE

Fairweather Science extended an invitation to all individuals and entities identified on the project mailing

list in which they described the planning process and announced the upcoming communities’ planning

activities. The announcement was emailed to relevant academia, nonprofits, and local, state, and federal

agencies on June 26, 2024 and October 21, 2024.

Nome, King Island, Council, and Solomon are rural Alaska Villages and do not have any typical

neighboring communities. However, the Planning Team invited the following communities to participate

in the planning process as Nome area leadership relies on them for resources after a hazard event: City of

Nome, Teller, Brevig Mission, Fairbanks, and Anchorage.

•

Alaska Department of Community, Commerce, and Economic Development (DCCED)

o DCCED, Division of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA)

o DCCED, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

o DCCED, Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP)

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)

o DEC, Division of Spill Prevention and Response (DSPR)

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)

2-4

SECTION TWO

PLANNING PROCESS

•

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)

Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA)

o DMVA, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM)

 DHS&EM All-Hazards Resilience Programs

 DHS&EM Hazard Mitigation Programs

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

o DNR, Division of Forestry (DOF)

o DNR, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS)

 DGGS, Coastal Hazards

 DGGS, Geology

o DNR, Mining, Land, and Water (MLW)

Alaska Department of Public Safety (DPS)

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF)

o DOT&PF Northern Region

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)

o ANTHC Community Development

Alaska State Troopers

o C Detachment, Nome Post

Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)

American Red Cross of Alaska- Disaster Program Manager

Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP)

Bering Strait School District (BSSD)

Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC)

o Bering Straits Development Company

Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority (BSRHA)

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

o BIA, Tribal Climate Resilience

o BIA, Tribal Operations

o BIA, Office of Emergency Management

Council Native Corporation

Denali Commission

FEMA Region 10

King Island Native Corporation

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

o NOAA, National Weather Service (NWS)

 NWS Northern Region

o NOAA, Regional Preparedness

Neighboring Communities

o City of Nome

o Teller

2-5

SECTION TWO

PLANNING PROCESS

•

2.4

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

o Brevig Mission

o Anchorage

o Fairbanks

Nome Local Emergency Planning Committee

Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDS)

Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC)

Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc. (RurAL CAP)

Sitnasuak Native Corporation (Nome)

Solomon Native Corporation

University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)

o UAF, Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy (ACCAP)

o UAF, Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC)

o UAF, Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO)

o UAF, Geophysical Institute (GI)

o UAF, Scenarios Network for Alaska + Arctic Planning (SNAP)

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Alaska Region

US Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

o USDA, Division of Rural Development (RD)

o USDA, Forest Service (USFS)

o USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

US Department of the Interior

o National Park Service (NPS)

o Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

 BIA, Tribal Climate Resilience

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)

US Geological Survey (USGS)

o USGS, Alaska Science Center

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND TRIBAL DEFINITION OF MEMBERSHIP

Nome Eskimo Community defines their tribal population as anyone with lineal descent and anyone who

enrolled during open enrollment. For the purposes of this HMP, the Tribe defines “public” as anyone in the

Nome region (Tribal and non-Tribal members) or Tribal members who live outside the Nome area. This

assures that anyone within the community is eligible to attend and participate in public tribal meetings

regarding hazard mitigation plan development and implementation activities.

King Island Native Community defines their tribal population as anyone with lineal descent. For the

purposes of this HMP, the Tribe defines “public” as anyone in the Nome region (Tribal and non-Tribal

members) or Tribal members who live outside the Nome area. This assures that anyone within the

community is eligible to attend and participate in public tribal meetings regarding hazard mitigation plan

development and implementation activities.

2-6

SECTION TWO

PLANNING PROCESS

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

Native Village of Council defines their tribal population as anyone with lineal descent from the original

1971 enrollment. For the purposes of this HMP, the Tribe defines “public” as anyone in the Nome region

(Tribal and non-Tribal members) or Tribal members who live outside the Nome area. This assures that

anyone within the community is eligible to attend and participate in public tribal meetings regarding hazard

mitigation plan development and implementation activities.

Village of Solomon defines their tribal population as anyone with enrollment approved via enrollment and

lineage descendant family trees. For the purposes of this HMP, the Tribe defines “public” as anyone in the

Nome region (Tribal and non-Tribal members) or Tribal members who live outside the Nome area. This

assures that anyone within the community is eligible to attend and participate in public tribal meetings

regarding hazard mitigation plan development and implementation activities.

The public was encouraged to provide input regarding local hazards and ideas for mitigation projects via

an online survey. The link to the survey was available on the Emergency Preparedness section of the

Kawerak website and then shared within the Tribe/community-specific social media pages.

The Planning Team identified their underserved/vulnerable populations at the beginning of the planning

process and included the elderly, mobility impaired, blind/deaf, and Tribal Elders. These groups were

engaged in the planning process by being offered paper copies of the survey and draft versions of the HMP,

at request. The posted flyers notifying the public of the HMP process and email notifications were focused

on those vulnerable populations not on social media. Printed flyers of the survey were available at the Tribal

offices on request.

Feedback received from the public (including underserved/vulnerable populations) was used in confirming

natural hazards that impact the Nome area as well as the King Island, Council, and Solomon historical

townsites, level of concern of each hazard, and critical facilities that the public relies on.

Outreach support documents and survey results are provided in Appendix D.

2.5

REVIEW AND INCORPORATION OF EXISTING PLANS, STUDIES, AND

REPORTS

During the development of this MJHMP, Fairweather Science and the Planning Team reviewed and

incorporated pertinent information from available resources into the document. Data included available

plans, studies, reports, and technical research, which is listed in Table 4. The data was reviewed and

referenced throughout the document.

Table 4- Documents Reviewed

Existing plans, studies,

reports, ordinances, etc.

Contents Summary

(How will this information improve mitigation

planning?)

Data Used

(How was this information

incorporated into this MJHMP?)

2023 State of Alaska Hazard

Mitigation Plan (SHMP)

Defines statewide hazards and their potential

locational impacts.

Compared hazard profiles, history,

and impacts of events for risk

assessment.

Other regional HMPs: White

Mountain MJHMP (2023),

Golovin MJHMP (2023),

Elim THMP (2023), City of

Nome (2016)

Defines hazards, resources, and mitigation projects

for communities in the area.

Compared hazard profiles, history,

and impacts of events for risk

assessment.

2007 USACE Erosion

Information Paper- Nome

and Council

Baseline erosion assessment of the communities.

Used to describe historical erosion

locations and impacts in Nome and

Council.

Shoreline Change in Nome

(1950-2012) (Overbeck et al.

2020)

Map of erosion locations and rate of erosion in Nome

from 1951-2015.

Used map in erosion hazard profile to

discuss extent and rate of erosion.

2-7

SECTION TWO

PLANNING PROCESS

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

Table 4- Documents Reviewed

Existing plans, studies,

reports, ordinances, etc.

Contents Summary

(How will this information improve mitigation

planning?)

Data Used

(How was this information

incorporated into this MJHMP?)

Color-indexed elevation

maps for flood-vulnerable

coastal communities in

western Alaska- Nome

(Overbeck et al. 2017)

Serve as a temporary tool to communicate about

elevations in at-risk coastal communities until true

inundation mapping can be completed

Used in the flood hazard section to

show elevations in Nome.

2017 Floodplain Manager’s

Report- Council

Provides details on historic flood events in the

community.

Used to describe historical flood

impacts and locations in Council.

Erosion Exposure

Assessment- Nome (Buzard

et al. 2021)

This is a summary of results from an erosion forecast

near infrastructure at Nome, Alaska.

Report was used in the erosion hazard

profile to determine severity of

erosion, future impacts, and

infrastructure threatened by erosion.

2019 Denali Commission

Statewide Threat Assessment

Determines and ranks individual communities and

infrastructure on their risk level by erosion, flooding,

and thawing permafrost.

Used group classification rankings in

flooding, erosion, and permafrost

degradation hazard profiles.

2018 and 2023 National

Climate Assessment

Assesses the science of climate change and variability

and its impacts across the U.S., now and throughout

the century.

Assessments cited several times in

hazard sections describing how

climate change will influence future

conditions.

UAF/SNAP Database

Provides historical data and future projections on

climate change impacts, wildfire danger, and other

applicable hazards.

Cited several figures and other data in

hazard profiles.

October 2022 DHS&EM

Disaster Cost Index

Provides details for historic statewide disasters.

Incorporated

relevant

disaster

descriptions in each applicable hazard

profile to strengthen the hazard

history, extent, and impact sections.

2017 Nome Tribal Climate

Adaptation Plan

The Nome Eskimo Community (NEC), in

collaboration with the Alaska Center for Climate

Assessment and Policy (ACCAP), developed a

climate adaptation plan with the Nome-based tribes.

This includes tribal members of NEC, Village of

Solomon, Native Village of Council, and King Island

Native Community. The project goals were to

familiarize tribal members with climate science and

local knowledge, provide an opportunity to identify

and discuss climate impacts and adaptation strategies,

develop a plan, and share information with other rural

Alaska and Native communities. This project was

funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Information cited throughout the

hazard profiles and projects references

in the Mitigation Action Plan

FY15-FY20 Village of

Solomon EPA Tribal

Environmental Plan

VOS’ Environmental Plan was created to assist the

Tribe of Solomon, Environmental Coordinator,

Kawerak, Solomon Native Corporation and other

various entities to better identify and find solutions,

as well as to build capacity to start addressing the

environmental issues in and around Solomon, AK.

Information cited throughout the

hazard profiles and projects references

in the Mitigation Action Plan

2013 Village of Solomon

Integrated Solid Waste Plan,

revised 2016

Discusses the solid waste issues in Solomon and

provides suggestions to upgrade.

Information reviewed during plan

development.

2-8

SECTION TWO

PLANNING PROCESS

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

Table 4- Documents Reviewed

Existing plans, studies,

reports, ordinances, etc.

Contents Summary

(How will this information improve mitigation planning?)

Data Used

(How was this

information incorporated

into this MJHMP?)

2017 Village of Solomon

Renewable Energy Plan, revised

2018

Discusses Solomon’s energy vision, with a goal of returning Solomon

to a year-round village.

Information

reviewed

during plan development.

Council Local Economic

Development Plan (2010-2015)

Describes the economic development program of the Native Village

of Council and charts the course of action over a five-year time period.

Native Village of Council

Organizational Strategic Plan

2004-2009

Provides community development strategic vision, values, and goals

over the next 5 years.

King Island Local Economic

Development Plan (1999, 20102014, 2014-2019

Describes the economic development program of the King Island

Native Community and charts the course of action over a five-year

time period.

Climate Change Migration,

Cultures, & Alaska’ Foreboding

Ghost Village

Describes the forced relocation of King Island community members

to Nome between the 1940s to 1960s and impacts to the Tribal

members.

Twice removed: King Islanders’

experience of “community”

through two relocations.

Describes the forced relocation of King Island community members

to Nome between the 1940s to 1960s and the second relocation from

“East End” to Nome proper and impacts to the Tribal members.

Solomon Local Economic

Development 1998, 2017-2020,

2021-2026

Describes the economic development program of the Village of

Solomon and charts the course of action over a five-year time period.

Nome Eskimo Community

Strategic Plan 2009-2013

Provides top 10 priority projects aimed at growing and strengthening

the NEC over a 5 year period.

City of Nome Comprehensive

Plan (1968)

Determines community goals and aspirations in terms of community

development.

Nome Native Community

Strategic Development Plan

2004-2009

The LEDP process facilitated a consolidated effort to implement

development strategies that will subsequently increase cultural

heritage, local employment opportunities for tribal members, decrease

dependency, and reduce duplication of efforts in various projects and

programs. Overall, the goal is to improve the cultural, economic and

social well-being of the Nome Native community.

Northwest Area Transportation

Plan – Nome Area Tourism

Demand, Potential, and

Infrastructure Study 2003

This study addresses if, how, and to what degree Nome’s state

highways and transportation infrastructure play a role in fostering

tourism industry growth and economic development into the future,

especially with expedition-class cruise travelers and birders. The

findings and recommendations of this study will fit into the Northwest

Alaska Transportation Plan.

The Unmet Needs of

Environmentally Threatened

Alaska Native Villages (2024)

This report identifies funding needs, priorities, and recommends

implementation strategies.

Documents reviewed during

plan development and

incorporated

information

into relevant sections as

applicable.

Priority

projects

from

LEDPs used in Section

3.4.8- Future Development.

Information reviewed

during plan development.

A complete list of references in provided in Section 8.

2.6

OTHER ONGOING TRIBAL EFFORTS

Once the 2025 MJHMP is completed, the Nome Eskimo Community, King Island Native Community,

Native Village of Council, and Village of Solomon intend to apply for available Hazard Mitigation

2-9

SECTION TWO

PLANNING PROCESS

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

Assistance Grant funding and will work closely with DHS&EM and the FEMA Region 10 Tribal Liaison

in doing so. In addition, on completion of the 2025 MJHMP, information will be incorporated into future

planning efforts and the creation of Tribal plans as well as other FEMA programs and initiatives.

Other ongoing Tribal efforts include:

•

Kawerak Transportation’s continued efforts to develop/update Long-Range Transportation Plans

in the region

•

Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority’s continue efforts to build new residential housing, and

in some communities, relocate housing out of hazard areas.

•

ANTHC’s ongoing efforts to upgrade and replace critical water and wastewater infrastructure

•

Kawerak Emergency Preparedness’ ongoing efforts to provide water purification systems for safe

drinking water and emergency food supplies to address food sovereignty concerns for residents

•

VOS’s Tribal Enrollment Department’s ongoing efforts to issue tribal identification cards to Tribal

members

•

VOS’s ongoing efforts to promote economic development by running the Solomon B&B,

increasing connection to the Tribe (holding youth camp regularly), establishing and maintaining

affordable housing (including logistics like water, sewer, electricity), establishing and maintaining

a tribal court (children’s cases, civil diversion agreements and culturally appropriate sentencing),

protecting and maintaining the environment, protecting watershed habitats including protection

from mining, increasing focus on health and well-being of tribal members, and teaching youth

about gatherings, food, hunting, and preserving their language

•

VOS’s Environmental Program’s ongoing efforts to partner with Michigan State University, a

grantee of National Science Foundation, to conduct home energy assessments for all Tribal

households

•

VOS’s Environmental Program’s ongoing efforts to partner with King Island Native Community,

Nome Eskimo Community, and Native Village of Council on conducting a greenhouse gas

emissions inventory to develop a priority climate action plan- mitigating greenhouse gases

•

VOS’s Environmental Program’s ongoing efforts to help relaunch the Ban the Bag campaign in

Nome to encourage the City of Nome to approve a city ordinance in banning single use plastic bags

•

NEC’s Tribal Services Department’s ongoing efforts to ensure that tribal members have essential

needs met and are trained, job-ready and qualified for employment. These efforts include general

(welfare) assistance, direct employment assistance, burial assistance, condolence program,

emergency assistance, subsistence reimbursement program, vocational training, and higher

education scholarship funds.

•

NEC’s Youth Services Department’s ongoing efforts to provide activities and programs that

promote culture, healthy lifestyles, and education to tribally-enrolled youth and families. These

efforts include educational services, cultural activities, family support, and general childcare

assistance programs.

•

NEC’s Housing Program’s ongoing efforts to provide financial assistance with weatherization

projects and rent to low-income eligible tribal members who reside in the vicinity of Nome. These

efforts include energy efficiency services (weatherization), rental assistance, and emergency

homeowners’ assistance fund.

•

NEC’s Family Services Department’s ongoing efforts to promote stability, security, and wellness

of tribal families in danger of having children removed and placed into the custody of state child

2-10

SECTION TWO

PLANNING PROCESS

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

welfare agencies. When tribal children are removed or are at risk of being removed by child welfare

agencies, NEC staff advocate for placement with immediate or extended family.

•

NEC’s Tribal Resources Department’s ongoing efforts to conserve the environment and tribal

resources in the Nome area. This office is funded by the EPA through a grant from the Indian

General Assistance Program (IGAP). These efforts include water quality studies in area streams

that are important to tribal members, informing tribal members about environmental issues relating

to Nome, the Bering Strait region, the state of Alaska, and the nation, assisting tribal members and

other organizations involved in recycling and backhaul activities that make our environment

healthier, representing NEC at meetings regarding environmental topics, including regional

subsistence fish and wildlife management, recycling and pollution, climate change, Arctic shipping

and development, migratory bird management, invasive species, and air and water quality, and

educating members about what they can do to help make their community more environmentally

safe.

•

NEC’s Tribal Transit Program’s ongoing efforts to provide public transportation to Nome residents

and visitors, covering approximately four square miles of downtown Nome.

2-11

SECTION THREE

RISK ASSESSMENT

NOME AREA TRIBES

2025 MJHMP

3. RISK ASSESSMENT/HAZARD ANALYSIS

This section identifies and profiles the hazards that could affect Nome, King Island townsite, Council

townsite, and Solomon townsite.

This section addresses a portion of Element B of the Tribal Mitigation Plan regulation checklist.

Regulation Checklist- 44 CFR § 201.7 Tribal Mitigation Plans

ELEMENT B. Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

B1. Does the plan include a description of the type, location, and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the tribal planning

area? [44 CFR § 201.7(c)(2)(i)]

B2. Does the plan include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events

for the tribal planning area? [44 CFR § 201.7(c)(2)(i)]

B3. Does the plan include a description of each identified hazard’s impact, as well as an overall summary of the vulnerability

of the tribal planning area? [44 CFR § 201.7(c)(2)(ii)]

Source: FEMA 2017 (Tribal)

3.1

OVERVIEW

Hazard identification is the process of recognizing any natural events that may threaten an area. Natural

hazards result from uncontrollable or unexpected natural events of sufficient magnitude. This plan does not

take in account any man-made, technological, or terrorism related hazards. Historical hazards are noted,

but all natural hazards that have the potential to affect the study area must be considered. Any hazards that

are determined to be unlikely to occur or cause little to no damage, are eliminated from consideration.

A hazard analysis includes the identification, screening, and profiling of each hazard.

Hazard profiling entails describing hazards in terms of their nature, history, location, magnitude, frequency,

extent, and probability. Hazards are identified through historical and anecdotal information collected by

members of the community, previous mitigation plans, studies, and study area hazard map

preparations/reviews, when appropriate. Hazard maps are then used to define the geographic extent of a

hazard, as well as define the approximate boundaries of the risk area.

3.2

HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING

On February 23, 2024, the Planning Team evaluated and screened the comprehensive list of potential

hazards that could impact the communities. The Planning Team determined that nine hazards pose a threat

to Nome and the historic townsites of King Island, Council, and Solomon: earthquake, flood, erosion, severe

weather, wildland/tundra fire, landslide, changes in the cryosphere (permafrost degradation, sea ice extent,

snow avalanche), and tsunami. King Island, Council, and Solomon have elected to profile radon within the

Nome area. The Planning Team decided to discuss the influence of climate change within each individual

haza

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.