# Nome Area Tribes including the Nome Eskimo

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Avillage_solomon%3A47c2f5acef4cff5c

## Record

- **Collection:** Tribal code
- **Document type:** Tribal code

## Text

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

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
1.

2.

3.

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
4.

MITIGATION STRATEGY ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1

Capability Assessment ..................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1

5.

6.

7.

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

8.

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

9.

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
AK
BRIC
BSRHA
CFR
CS
DCCED
DCI
DCRA
DGGS
DHS
DHS&EM
DMA 2000
DMVA
ENSO
EPA
EQ
ER
FEMA
FLD
ft
GF
GIS
HMA
HMGP
HMP
KINC
Kts
M
MAP
MH
MJHMP
MLLW
MMI
mph
NCAR CCSM4
NEC
NFIP
NOAA
NPS
NRCS
NVC
NWS
PGA
RA
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
SW
TS
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:
1.
2.
3.
4.

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
0.0
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
0
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
50
0
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
0
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
0
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

60

$805,490,826

1,495

$1,083,707,560

Negligible

Likely

Severe Weather

60

$805,490,826

1,495

$1,083,707,560

Limited to Critical

Highly Likely

Wildland/Tundra Fire

60

$805,490,826

1,495

$1,083,707,560

Negligible

Unlikely

Changes in the
Cryosphere

60

$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

18

$316,388,957

35

$25,371,080

Critical

Likely

Tsunami

18

$316,388,957

35

$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

2

$1,100,000

Limited to Critical

Highly Likely

Wildland/Tundra Fire

2

$1,100,000

Negligible

Unlikely

Changes in the
Cryosphere

2

$1,100,000

Critical

Likely

Flood

1

$100,000

Critical

Likely

Tsunami

1

$100,000

Negligible

Unlikely

Erosion

0

$0

Critical

Likely

Landslide

0

$0

Limited

Possible

# of CF:

$ of CF:

Earthquake

2

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

Negligible

Likely

Likely

Severe Weather

# of CF: 6

$ of CF: $4,050,000

# of CF: 3

$ of CF: Unknown

Limited to Critical

Limited to Critical

Highly Likely

Highly Likely

Wildland/Tundra Fire

# of CF: 6

$ of CF: $4,050,000

N/A

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

Critical

Likely

Likely

Limited

Limited

Highly Likely

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

N/A

Critical

N/A

Likely

N/A

Tsunami

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $750,000

N/A

N/A

Negligible

N/A

Unlikely

N/A

Erosion

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $750,000

N/A

N/A

Critical

N/A

Likely

N/A

Landslide

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF:

$ of CF: Unknown

Limited

Limited

Possible

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

Negligible

Likely

Likely

Severe Weather

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $300,000

# of CF: 6

$ of CF: $6,050,000

Limited to Critical

Limited to Critical

Highly Likely

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

Critical

Likely

Likely

Limited

Limited

Highly Likely

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

Critical

Likely

Likely

Tsunami

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

N/A

N/A

Negligible

N/A

Unlikely

N/A

Erosion

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF:

$ of CF: $

Critical

Critical

Likely

Likely

Landslide

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF:

$ of CF: $

Limited

Limited

Possible

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

Negligible

Likely

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

Highly Likely

Wildland/Tundra Fire

# of CF: 3

$ of CF: $1,800,000

# of CF: 31

$ of CF: $34,610,000

Negligible

Critical

Unlikely

Unlikely

Changes in the
Cryosphere

# of CF: 3

$ of CF: $1,800,000

# of CF: 31

$ of CF: $34,610,000

Critical

Critical

Likely

Likely

Limited

Limited

Highly Likely

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

Critical

Likely

Likely

Tsunami

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF: 21

$ of CF: $23,360,000

Negligible

Negligible

Unlikely

Unlikely

Erosion

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF: 22

$ of CF: $24,360,000

Critical

Critical

Likely

Likely

Landslide

# of CF: 0

$ of CF: $0

# of CF: 1

$ of CF: $1,000,000

Limited

Limited

Possible

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

0
0
0

Tsunami

-

SOA/
Private

x

x

x

227 Airport
Rd

64°30’39”N

165°26’40”W

$3,000,000

-

SOA

x

x

x

x

64°32’14”N

165°24’35”W

$50,000,000

-

Private

x

x

x

x

64°32’32”N

165°24’30”W

$50,000,000

-

SOA

x

x

x

x

64°26’13”N

165°00’26”W

$100,000,000

-

Private

x

x

x

x

64°30’20”N

165°23’56”W

$948,130

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

Wildfire

$80,000,000

Volcano

165°26’40”W

x

Small Boat Harbor

64°30’05”N

165°25’12”W

$5,000,000

-

CON

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

Port, Cape Nome BSNC

64°29’37”N

165°26’22”W

$100,000,000

-

Private

x

x

x

x

x

x

5

Port office building

64°30’08”N

165°25’16”W

$120,668

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

x

x

64°30’07”N

165°26’02”W

$20,000,000

-

Private

x

x

x

x

64°30’18”N

165°23’43”W

$13,276,363

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

64°30’05”N

165°24’29”W

$2,451,269

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

64°31’10”N

165°22’28”W

$354,874

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

5

2
4

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
St

Executive Summary- 15

Radon

Severe Weather

64°30’39”N

Landslide

227 Airport
Rd

Facility
Owner

Erosion

Building
Type

0

0
Emergency Services

x

Facility
Value

Flood

0

x

Longitude

Earthquake

Transportation & Equipment

0

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

30

Facility Name

Address

# of Occupants

Facility Type

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

20

Health NSHC Facilities

20

Nome Elementary
School

75

Nome High School

75

Nome Charter School

0

NACTEC Bldg. and
garage

1000 Greg
Kruschek
Avenue
1057 E 5th
Ave
3.5 Teller
Hwy
3.5 Teller
Hwy
3.5 NomeTeller Hwy

30

Nome Preschool

911 E 5th Ave

Utilities

0
0
5
50

Shelters

0
15

20

15

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)

-

NG

x

x

x

x

64°30’05”N

165°24’29”W

$750,000

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

64°29’53”N

165°22’46”W

$1,000,000

W2

NSHC

x

x

x

x

64°29’51”N

165°22’59”W

$2,500,000

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

64°32’31”N

165°24’18”W

$2,500,000

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

64°32’32”N

165°24’26”W

$2,500,000

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

64°32’35”N

165°24’12”W

$3,179,121

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

64°29’48”N

165°22’56”W

$2,500,000

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

64°30’11”N

165°26’15”W

$70,000,000

OTF

Private

x

x

x

x

1226 Port Rd

64°30’23”N

165°25’45”W

$100,000,000

-

CON/
NJUS

x

x

x

x

x

x

102 Division
St

64°29’53”N

165°24’34”W

$1,748,241

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

x

x

302 Front St

64°29’47”N

165°23’51”W

$3,000,000

W2

Private

x

x

x

x

x

x

64°29’48”N

165°23’08”W

$2,000,000

W2

Private

x

x

x

x

406 Tobuk
Alley

64°30’06”N

165°24’33”W

$4,000,000

W2

Non-profit

x

x

x

x

1008 Front St

64°29’57”N

165°24’29”W

$2,000,000

W2

Non-profit

x

x

x

x

500 Seppala
Dr

64°30’03”N

165°24’40”W

$20,000,000

W2

Kawerak

x

x

x

x

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

2

Longitude

Earthquake

National Guard Hangar

Latitude

Cryosphere

0

Address

# of Occupants

Facility Type
Medi
cal
Education

Facility Name

W2

Kawerak

x

x

3

Office Building Old
Federal Building –
BSNC

112 Front St

64°29’51”N

165°24’19”W

$2,000,000

W2

Private

x

x

x

x

x

x

3

USPS

113 Front St

64°29’49”N

165°24’19”W

$2,000,000

W2

USPS

x

x

x

x

x

x

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

W2

SOA

x

x

108 Front St

64°29’50”N

165°24’14”W

$1,000,000

W2

Private

x

x

15

x

x

x
x

x

x
x

0

Building/fire inspector

64°30’05”N

165°24’29”W

$2,451,269

W2

CON

x

x

0

Garco

64°30’05”N

165°25’58”W

$935,922

W2

CON

x

x

0

Landfill/dump building
combined

64°31’19”N

165°16’53”W

$1,062,212

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

2

Library, museum-old

64°30’10”N

165°23’55”W

$4,566,689

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

1

Mini Convention Center

64°29’53”N

165°24’48”W

$1,242,473

W2

CON

x

x

2

Cemetery Morgue

64°30’14”N

165°25’17”W

$423,847

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

0

Community Cemetery

64°30’18”N

165°25’16”W

$2,500,000

-

CON

x

x

x

x

0

NEC Cemetery

64°30’05”N

165°26’21”W

$2,500,000

-

CON

x

x

x

x

0

Fort Davis Post
Cemetery

64°29’13”N

165°18’36”W

$2,500,000

-

CON

x

x

x

x

1

St. Joe’s Church

100 W King
Pl

64°29’56”N

165°24’07”W

$2,720,269

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

5

Recreation Center

208 E 6th Ave

64°30’04”N

165°23’44”W

$8,573,948

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

2

Richard Foster
museum/library

100 W 7th
Ave

64°30’10”N

165°23’55”W

$21,091,545

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

2

Visitor Center

301 Front St

64°29’52”N

165°24’36”W

$275,957

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

x

x

15

XYZ Senior Center

104 Division
St

64°29’54”N

165°24’34”W

$2,399,029

W2

CON

x

x

x

x

x

x

100 W 7th
Ave
102 Division
St

Executive Summary- 17

x

x

x

x

x

x

x
x

x

x

x

Radon

$3,419,000

Wildfire

165°23’16”W

Facility
Owner

Volcano

64°29’55”N

Building
Type

Tsunami

880 E 6th Ave

20

Community

Severe Weather

Earthquake

Kawerak Head Start

Facility
Value

Landslide

Cryosphere

5

Longitude

Erosion

Address

Latitude

Flood

# of Occupants

Facility Type

Facility Name

W2

Private

x

x

x

x

7

Grocery Store- Hanson’s

415 Bering St

64°30’03”N

165°24’29”W

$5,000,000

W2

Private

x

x

x

x

Hardware StoresGrizzley
Hardware StoreBuilder’s Industrial
Supply

60 Greg
Kruschek Ave

64°30’21”N

165°24’03”W

$3,000,000

W2

Private

x

x

x

x

64°30’06”N

165°24’56”W

$3,000,000

W2

Private

x

x

x

x

x

x

64°30’05”N

165°25’19”W

$10,000,000

W2

NSEDC

x

x

x

x

x

x

3
10

Fish Plant (NSEDC)

5

Credit Union 1

406 Warren Pl

64°30’03”N

165°24’31”W

$1,666,667

W2

Private

x

x

5

Wells Fargo

109 Front St

64°29’49”N

165°24’17”W

$1,666,667

W2

Private

x

x

5

Northrim Bank

306 W 5th
Ave

64°30’08”N

165°24’21”W

$1,666,667

W2

Private

x

x

x

x

306 W 5th
Ave

64°30’08”N

165°24’21”W

$1,000,000

W2

Private/SOA

x

x

x

x

64°29’49”N

165°24’06”W

$2,000,000

W2

Private

x

x

x

x

$50,000,000

W2

Non-profit

x

x

x

x

$2,000,000

W2

SOA

x

x

3
1
5
0
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

x
x

x

x

x

x
x

x

x

x

Radon

$5,000,000

Wildfire

165°24’18”W

Facility
Owner

Volcano

64°30’20”N

Building
Type

Tsunami

1 Nome-Teller
Rd

3

Total:

Severe Weather

Earthquake

Grocery Store- AC

Facility
Value

Landslide

Cryosphere

7

Longitude

Erosion

Address

Latitude

Flood

# of Occupants

Facility Type

Facility Name

Nome Eskimo Community Critical Facilities in Nome

Total:

$1,000,000

W2

NEC

x

x

0

Empty lot

64°29’46”N

165°23’33”W

$100,000

Gravel

NEC

x

x

0

Culturally
Sacred or
Significant Sites

0

Subsistence
Camps
Total:

$1,100,000

5

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

Executive Summary- 19

x
x

x

Wildfire

165°24’11”W

Volcano

64°30’04”N

Tsunami

5

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

x
x

x

King Island Native Community Critical Facilities

x

x

4

1 duplex in town

64°29’53”N

165°23’22”W

$500,000

W2

KINC IRA

x

x

x

x

8
1
0
0

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

W2
W2
Gravel
N/A

KINC IRA
KINC IRA
KINC IRA
Corporation

x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x

Total:

$4,050,000

0
Total:

0
16

Radon

x

Wildfire

x

Volcano

KINC IRA

Facility
Owner

Tsunami

W2

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

3

Community

Govern
ment

King Island Native Community’s Assets in Nome

Total:

Corporation

x

x

x

x

0
0

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
Unknown

N/A
W2

Corporation
Corporation

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

0

0
0
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

W2

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

0

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

x

x

Total:

$300,000

x

Radon

W2

Wildfire

$300,000

Volcano

165°23’19”W

Tsunami

3

64°29’54”N

Severe Weather

Total:

Facility
Owner

Landslide

Subsistence Camps

Building
Type

Erosion

0

Facility Value

Flood

Culturally Sacred or Significant
Sites

Longitude

Earthquake

0

Latitude

Cryosphere

# of Occupants

Tribal Office

Facility Name

Address

Facility Type
Govern
ment

3

Community

Native Village of Council’s Assets in Nome

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

1300 ft airstrip

64°53’44”N

163°41’40”W

$5,000,000

Gravel

SOA

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

Camp Bendeleben

64°53’33”N

163°40’26”W

$300,000

W2

CNC

x

x

x

x

0
0
0

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
$200,000
$250,000

W2
W2

NVC
Private

x
x

x
x

x
x

x
x

Total:

0

0
0
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

W2

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

0

Community

Utility/
Transp
ortation

Native Village of Council’s Assets in Council

Village of Solomon Critical Facilities

Total:

x

x

64°29’56”N

165°23’13”W

$650,000

Gravel

VOS

x

x

x

x

64°30’04”N

165°24’22”W

$150,000

W2

VOS

x

x

x

x

Total:

$1,800,000

Facility Value

Building
Type

Facility
Owner

$5,000,000

Gravel

SOA

x

x

x

x

Wildfire

x

Volcano

x

Tsunami

VOS

Radon

Severe Weather

W2

Landslide

1,000,000

Erosion

165°24’22”W

Flood

64°30’04”N

Erosion

0

Facility
Owner

Flood

0

Building
Type

Earthquake

2

5 lots (E 6th Ave)
Tiny Home
(at Solomon Building)
Culturally Sacred or Significant
Sites

Facility Value

Earthquake

Community

0

Longitude

Cryosphere

Solomon Building
(3 apartments/1 office)

Latitude

Cryosphere

# of Occupants
8

Address

Facility Type

Facility Name

Govern
ment

Village of Solomon’s Assets in Nome

Subsistence Camps

10

164°26’34”W

$5,000,000

Gravel

SNC

x

x

0

Boat Launch at Bonanza

64°32’03”N

164°29’05”W

$1,000,000

W2

SNC

x

x

0

Safety Bridge

64°28’19”N

164°44’49”W

$250,000

SOA

x

x

0

Bonanza Bridge

64°32’41”N

164°26’12”W

$ 250,000

SOA

x

x

0

East Fork Bridge

64°41’32”N

164°16’49”W

$250,000

SOA

x

x

x

x

0

Big Hurrah Bridge

64°39’19”N

164°19’05”W

$250,000

SOA

x

x

x

x

Executive Summary- 22

x
x

x

x

x
X

x
x

x

x

x

x
x

x

x

Radon

64°33’42”N

x

Wildfire

Old Runway

x

Volcano

0

Throughout the Village

Tsunami

Road maintained by the State

Longitude

Severe Weather

0

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

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

Well House and Pump

64°33’36”N

164°26’28”W

$300,000

W2

VOS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

64°33’35”N

164°26’32”W

$1,000,000

Solar

VOS

x

x

64°33’35”N

164°26’33”W

$150,000

W2

VOS

x

x

64°35’46”N

164°23’35”W

$3,500,000

Gravel

SOA

x

x

0
0

Community

0

Facility
Owner

x
x

x

x

x
x

x

x
x

4

Solomon Bed and Breakfast

64°33’35”N

164°26’32”W

$5,000,000

W2

VOS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

Okitkon ER Shelter Cabin

64°33’34”N

164°26’40”W

$100,000

W2

VOS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

Subsistence Camps x10

$500,000

W2

Private

x

x

x

x

x

x

0

Cemetery

x

x

x

0
0
2
0

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

x

x

x

x

64°32’16”N

164°29’13”W

$10,000,000

N/A

SNC

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

64°32’45”N

164°26’10”W

$1,000,000

N/A

SNC

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

64°33’36”N

164°26’32”W

$50,000

W2

SNC

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

0
6
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

x

Radon

Flood

64°33’36”N

Facility Value

Wildfire

Earthquake

200-gallon water tank

Longitude

Volcano

Cryosphere

0

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.

M

H

H

L

H

H

M

M

H

M

H

H

Responsible
Dept

Potential
Funding

M

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes

H

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,
BIA,
DHS&EM,
Kawerak

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,
BIA,
DHS&EM

H

M

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes,
DHS&EM

H

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,
BIA,
DHS&EM

H

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA
Kawerak

M

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA
FEMA, Denali

M

H

L

Timeframe

Benefits-Costs/ Technical Feasibility

Plan Integration

LS

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.)

H

M

H

VOS

ER

Develop and maintain a Small Community
Emergency Response Plan (SCERP) for Nome
and the townsites during summer season

H

H

H

NVC

TS

MH 4

M

M

VOS

FLD

MH 3

Develop, produce, and distribute information
materials concerning mitigation, preparedness,
and safety procedures for all identified natural
hazards.

M

NVC

RA

MH 2

Identify and pursue funding opportunities to
implement mitigation actions and to keep
mitigation plan up to date (every 5 years).

KINC

KINC

CS

MH 1

Hold an annual hazard meeting to provide
information to residents about recognizing and
mitigating all natural hazards that affect the
community.

NEC

TF

Action Description

Priority- Townsites
SW

Action
ID

Priority- Nome Area/General

EQ

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

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

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

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

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

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

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

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

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

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

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

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

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

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Executive Summary- 24

H

H

H

L

H

M

H

VOS

M

H

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

H

L

L

M

L

L

M

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.

L

H

H

L

H

H

L

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes

Ongoing

MH 12

Assess the quality of drinking water to determine
what contaminants are present

H

H

H

L

H

H

M

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, EPA,
DEC, NSHC

Ongoing

MH 13

Pursue funding for alternative and renewable
energy (solar or wind)

L

H

H

H

H

H

H

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.

L

L

KINC, NVC

Tribes,
Kawerak

1-3 years

MH 15

Improve maintenance of the Nome-Council,
Nome-Teller, and Pilgram Roads

H

H

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,
DOT, Denali

Ongoing

H

M

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

X

LEDP, SCERP,
LRTP, LUP,
Strategic Plan

LEDP, TCAP,
Strategic Plan

X

LEDP, Strategic
Plan

LS

L

H

NVC

ER

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

H

Did
not
select

VOS

TS

Did
not
select

NVC

FLD

MH 8

Install warning sirens to alert residents of
incoming hazards or other events. Test sirens
regularly.

KINC

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

LEDP, LRTP,
LUP, TCAP,
Strategic Plan

x

x

x

x

LEDP, Strategic
Plan

x

x

x

x

LEDP, LRTP,
LUP, Strategic
Plan

x

x

x

RA

NEC

CS

Action Description

TF

KINC

Action
ID

SW

Priority- Townsites
EQ

Priority- Nome Area/General

x

Potential
Funding

Timeframe

MH 16

Improve maintenance of the Solomon cemetery

H

VOS

Tribe, BIA,
FEMA

Ongoing

MH 17

Improve maintenance of
wastewater treatment facility

L

VOS

Tribe, BIA,
FEMA, Denali,
ANTHC

1-5 years

MH 18

Improve maintenance of the Solomon B&B
building

L

VOS

Tribe, BIA,
FEMA, HUD

Ongoing

MH 19

Educate the community about climate change
and how it affects our Tribe and our future.

M

VOS

Tribe, FEMA,
Kawerak

Ongoing

MH 20

Explore community-wide initiatives for fish
habitat restoration, pollution control measures,
and disaster preparedness.

H

H

H

H

H

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

L

Did
not
select

M

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

M

H

H

H

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

H

H

H

H

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

LS

Responsible
Dept

ER

VOS

TS

NVC

FLD

VOS

LEDP, LUP,
TCAP, Strategic
Plan

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

LEDP, Strategic
Plan

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

LEDP, Strategic
Plan

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

LEDP, TCAP,
Strategic Plan

RA

NVC

CS

KINC

KINC

TF

NEC

SW

Action Description

Priority- Townsites
EQ

Action
ID

Priority- Nome Area/General

LEDP, TCAP,
Strategic Plan

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

LEDP, TCAP,
Strategic Plan

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

LEDP, LUP,
Strategic Plan

x

x

x

LEDP, LUP,
TCAP, Strategic
Plan

x

x

x

LEDP, SCERP,
LUP, Strategic
Plan

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

H

H

H

H

MH 26

Promote climate adaptation resiliency planning
by regularly updating the Nome Tribal Climate
Adaptation Plan (TCAP)

M

M

M

H

M

M

H

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

M

M

H

M

M

H

KINC, NVC,
VOS

Tribes, BIA,
FEMA,
DHS&EM

1-5 years

MH 28

Plant a community garden to provide fresh
vegetables to the community

H

H

H

M

H

H

M

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA,
USDA

1-5 years

MH 29

Develop a seed catalog/bank to increase food
sovereignty

M

L

M

L

L

M

M

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

L

M

L

M

M

L

M

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA,
USDA

Ongoing

MH 31

Pursue food sovereignty projects not dependent
on electricity (cold storage)

M

M

H

H

M

H

H

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.

L

L

M

H

Did
not
select

M

M

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

L

L

M

Did
not
select

L

M

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

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

LEDP, SCERP,
LRTP, LUP,
Strategic Plan

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

LEDP, TCCAP,
Strategic Plan

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

LEDP, TCAP,
Strategic Plan

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

LEDP, Strategic
Plan

LEDP, TCAP,
Strategic Plan

x

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

x

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

x

Executive Summary- 27

x

x

LS

Responsible
Dept

ER

Pursue funding to build a seawall around Nome,
including Fort Davis

VOS

TS

MH 25

NVC

FLD

VOS

RA

NVC

CS

KINC

KINC

TF

NEC

SW

Action Description

Priority- Townsites
EQ

Action
ID

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

L

M

H

M

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

L

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

H

H

L

CS 1

Map the location of permafrost and slope
stability throughout the community

L

M

L

M

H

H

H

H

H

M

H

H

M

H

L

H

H

Potential
Funding

M

KINC, NVC,
VOS

Tribes, FEMA,
Denali

H

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, BIA,
FEMA, HUD<
Denali

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, HUD
FEMA, Denali,
BSRHA

H

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

x

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

x

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

x

LEDP, SCERP,
Strategic Plan

x

LEDP, Strategic
Plan

x

M

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA

Ongoing

M

VOS

Tribe, NOAA

Ongoing

H

H

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribe, EPA,
FEMA, USDA,
DOF

1-5 years

Did
not
select

L

VOS

Tribe

1-5 years

NVC

Tribe, DOF,
USDA, FEMA

1-5 years

H

H

L

Responsible
Dept

H

M

KINC, NVC,
VOS

Tribes, FEMA,
Kawerak

Ongoing

L

M

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

x

LEDP, Strategic
Plan

x

LEDP, LUP,
LRTP, Strategic
Plan

x

LEDP, Strategic
Plan

x

LEDP, LUP,
LRTP, Strategic
Plan, TCAP

x

LS

SW 5

M

H

H

M

VOS

ER

SW 4

Educate community members on winter travel
safety and proper preparedness, to mitigate
dangers of thinning ice cover in the winter.

H

H

L

NVC

TS

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.

H

H

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

RA

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

CS

KINC

Action Description

TF

NEC

Action
ID

SW

Priority- Townsites
EQ

Priority- Nome Area/General

1-10 years

Did
not
select

M

VOS

Tribe, FEMA,
EPA, DGGS,
DEC

Ongoing

L

L

M

KINC, NVC,
VOS

Tribes, EPA,
FEMA, DGGS,
DHS&EM,

Ongoing

L

L

H

KINC, NVC,
VOS

Tribes, EPA,
FEMA, DGGS

Ongoing

L

H

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, FEMA,
DGGS, Denali

1-5 years

H

H

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

Tribes, EPA,
Kawerak

1-3 years

M

M

M

L

L

RA 1

Purchase radon testing kits to monitor radon
levels in critical facilities and homes

N/A

Did
not
select

Did
not
select

M

Did
not
select

RA 2

Provide radon information to public to reduce
human health effects of radon exposure

N/A

L

L

M

RA 3

Evaluate new community development to protect
residential construction from radon impacts

N/A

L

L

H

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

H

L

L

H

FLD 2

Develop or update a watershed protection plan

M

H

H

H

M

H

H

H

H

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

x

LEDP, Strategic
Plan

x

LEDP, TCAP,
Strategic Plan

x

LEDP, LUP,
TCAP, Strategic
Plan

x

LEDP, LUP,
Strategic Plan

x

LEDP, TCAP,
Strategic Plan

x

LEDP, Strategic
Plan

x

LS

Benefits-Costs/ Technical Feasibility

ER

Timeframe

M

M

H

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

TS

NVC

FLD

VOS

RA

NVC

CS

KINC

KINC

TF

NEC

SW

Action Description

Priority- Townsites
EQ

Action
ID

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

H

H

H

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

H

VOS

Tribe, FEMA,
NSF, NOAA,
DGGS

1-5 years

H

VOS

Tribe, FEMA,
NSF, NOAA,
DGGS

1-5 years

H

M

M

H

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

x

LEDP, LUP,
TCAP, Strategic
Plan

x

LEDP, LUP,
Strategic Plan

x

LEDP, LUP,
Strategic Plan

x

LS

Timeframe

Tribes, FEMA,
NSF, NOAA,
DGGS, Denali

H

M

Potential
Funding

NEC, KINC,
NVC, VOS

H

H

L

Responsible
Dept

ER

VOS

TS

NVC

FLD

VOS

RA

NVC

CS

KINC

KINC

TF

NEC

SW

Action Description

Priority- Townsites
EQ

Action
ID

Priority- Nome Area/General

LEDP, LUP,
Strategic Plan

x

LEDP, LUP,
Strategic Plan

x

LEDP, Strategic
Plan

x

LEDP, LUP,
Strategic Plan

x

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

01

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. PLA

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/tribal%3Avillage_solomon%3A47c2f5acef4cff5c. Public record. Not legal advice.