Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696591197966.pdf (United States)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Community and Regional Affairs Community Resilience and Climate Adaptation in Alaska Sally Russell Cox ● Climate Impacts to Infrastructure Workshop ● February 26, 2018 1 Climate Adaptation Responses • Shoreline protection measures and other controls to Protection-in-Place prevent/minimize the effects of coastal or riverine threats • Allow the community to remain in its current location • Gradually moving property and development away from hazard- Migration prone areas • Community must have suitable, developable land nearby • Moving entire community to entirely different location not Relocation • Usually considered only after determination that other vulnerable to natural hazards methods of dealing with hazard threats would not be feasible Newtok Photo: Joseph Antosh, 2015 Ice-rich permafrost layer thaws when exposed to warmer Thawing Permafrost + Erosion river water, leaving a “shelf” with no support Permafrost Layer Bank of the Ninglick River at Newtok 4 Photo: Lisa Charles 5 Photo: Lisa Charles 6 Photo: Lisa Charles 7 Newtok Erosion Water Source School Barge Landing 1996 Dump Site Source: ASCG Inc. 1954 Newtok Erosion Land lost to erosion 2006-2016 Land lost to erosion 2006-2016 Summer 2006 August 2006 Photo: Sally Russell Cox October 2016 Photo: Romy Cadiente • 1958: BIA built a school at the current Newtok location.
This site Newtok was selected because it was the farthest point upriver the BIA barge could navigate to off-load the school building materials.

A permanent village developed around the school.

• Community became aware of erosion issues in the 1970s and they began monitoring erosion using stakes • 1983: State provided $100,000 for Ninglick River Erosion Assessment by local engineering firm, Woodward-Clyde.
Recommendation: “Relocating Newtok would likely be less expensive than trying to hold back the Ninglick River.” 10 Newtok • Between 1987 and 1989, the State provided $1,337,447 to Newtok for erosion control measures.
Corps of Engineers and others continued to study the problem but concluded that the village must relocate, as there is no permanent and cost effective alternative available for remaining at the current site • 1994: Decision to relocate; relocation site selection • 1996: Newtok Native Corporation began negotiating land exchange with USFWS for Mertarvik.

• 2003: Land Exchange completed with enactment of U. S. Public Law 108-129.
Photo: Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP 11 Newtok Newtok Village Council Newtok Native Corporation 2006 Newtok Planning Group Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District Economic Development Administration National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DoD Innovative Readiness Training Program USDA, Rural Development USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Services Housing and Urban Development Bureau of Indian Affairs Federal Aviation Administration Environmental Protection Agency Denali Commission Alaska Congressional Delegation Representatives State of Alaska Commerce, Community, and Economic Development/Community and Regional Affairs– group coordinator Environmental Conservation/Village Safe Water Program Transportation and Public Facilities Military and Veterans Affairs/Homeland Security and Emergency Management Education and Early Development Health and Social Services Alaska Energy Authority Alaska Governor’s Office Alaska Legislative Representatives Regional + Non-Profit Organizations Association of Village Council Presidents, Regional Housing Authority Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Coastal Villages Region Fund Lower Kuskokwim School District Rural Alaska Community Action Program Yukon -Kuskokwim Health Corporation Source: Vice News 12 • Fosters good relationships: brings together community and agencies Newtok Planning Group on a regular basis • Ensures a local “seat at the table”: community leadership always part of discussions and final decision-maker • Enhances creative thinking: often times, a creative synergy will occur with “outside the box” brainstorming of solutions to issues • Relieves some of the bureaucratic process: brings agencies to community instead of forcing community to navigate the bureaucratic web alone • Enhances agency collaboration and coordination: many examples of how agencies worked together on relocation projects, leveraging funding, expertise and other resources * None of this precludes individual engagement with community leadership 13 • 2006 EDA Award to DCCED, DCRA for Mertarvik Newtok Planning Group Barge Landing and Staging Area • 2008 Discussions with Dept.
of Defense's Innovative Readiness Training Program (IRT) to assist with pioneer infrastructure construction for 5 years • Caveat: Barge landing needed to be completed before IRT arrived at Mertarvik with landing craft on July 15, 2009 14 2009 Mertarvik Barge Landing EDA Grant to State + State Legislative Funding Photo: Sally Russell Cox 2009 Mertarvik Barge Landing EDA Grant to State + State Legislative Funding Photo: Robert Lundell 2009 IRT Arrives at Mertarvik Photo: Robert Lundell 2011 Opening of Mertarvik Quarry State Legislative Funding + IRT 18 2011 Mertarvik Evacuation Center Foundation State Legislative Grant to Newtok Photo: Sally Russell Cox 2011 Water Well + Septic System 2 0 2012 Mertarvik Access Road State Legislative + BIA Funding Photo: Robert Lundell 2012 Mertarvik Strategic Management Plan • Phasing + sequencing of tasks of overall relocation • Identification of funding • Short-term strategic focus areas 23 2012 Waterfront Development Concept Prepared by State DOT/PF with BIA Funding to Newtok Source: Alaska DOT/PF 2012-13 Military Buildings + Homes 2 Military Buildings: State Legislative Grant to Newtok 3 Homes: AVCP RHA through HUD 2 Photo: Sally Russell Cox 5 2014 Airport Layout Plan 26 2015 Concept Paper Plat and Layout State DHSEM Funding to VSW 27 2016 Mertarvik Pioneer Infrastructure Photo: LeMay Engineering Community Decision-Making Continuum Community Understanding of Risk Planning: Local Decisions + Actions to Reduce Risk Implementation: Working toward Resilience • Hazard Identification • Science/Engineering Studies + Local Observation • Risk Assessments • Recommendations • Strategic Community Planning • Inter-Agency Planning Groups • Identification + Prioritization of Strategic Actions • Identification of Resources •Implementation of Strategic Actions (Protect-in-Place, Migrate Infrastructure, Relocation) •Continuation of Inter-Agency Planning Groups to support implementation 29 Alaska Climate Change Impact Mitigation Program Community Understanding of Risk Established in 2008 to help threatened communities develop planned approach to shoreline protection, building relocation and/or eventual relocation of the village.
Hazard Impact Assessment (HIA) Community Adaptation Planning Grant Identify and document climate change- related hazards; establishes baseline Funding to implement one or more adaptation actions from HIA Analyze hazard trends and future impacts to community to understand risk Recommend actions to adapt to hazard impacts, taking into account financial considerations Provides additional information on hazard risk Brings community to next stage in adaptation decision-making process 30 Some Accomplishments 2008-2016 • Hazard Impact Assessment studies conducted in the communities of Atmautluak, Elim, Kipnuk, Nelson Lagoon and Quinhagak.
Helped these communities understand their hazard risk and identify adaptation and mitigation actions.
• Mertarvik Community Layout: helped Newtok begin planning and design of new townsite at Mertarvik • Shishmaref Relocation Site Feasibility Study: informed Shishmaref’s decision to relocate and select a relocation site • Conceptual Designs of Emergency Shelters for Koyukuk, Newtok and Shaktoolik to protect-in-place while making longer term plans • Foothills Master Plan and Subdivision Design: helped Unalakleet plan to migrate development away from hazard-prone coast • Helped the Immediate Action Working Group identify funding needs in most threatened communities 31 Alaska Community Coastal Protection Project Planning: Local Decisions + Actions to Reduce Risk • Based on Newtok model: o Local Coordinator funded full-time for 2 years o Organization of Inter-Agency Planning Groups to provide technical expertise on actions in Strategic Management Plan o Development of comprehensive Strategic Management Plan to guide community-agency activities to increase local resilience.
• Focus communities were Kivalina, Shaktoolik and Shishmaref.
• Funding came from Coastal Impact Assistance Program 32 Identifying Issues, Values, Goals and Objectives The Planning Process Y e a r O n e Y e a r T w o Literature Review Community Survey 1 2 Value Survey 3 Elder Interviews Community Gathering 4 5 Background Planning Report July 2015 Identifying and Prioritizing Strategic Actions + Inter-Agency Planning Group Meetings Community Input Community Gathering Strategic Management Plan August 2016 Inter-Agency Planning Groups • Assistance to imperiled communities should be Some Guiding Principles based on fair and defensible methodology which prioritizes communities by level of threat and need • Community must be key player in decision-making process • Imperiled communities (and agencies assisting them) need quantifiable data from which to make informed decisions • A coordinated, interdisciplinary approach to address community threats is essential to increasing community resilience Discovery Risk MAP: Assisting Alaska Native Villages Identification of community threats + needs • • Collection of new/available data • Summarize in Discovery Report Risk Assessment + Analysis • Conduct risk and vulnerability assessments • Analyze results and document in Risk Report for community Risk Reduction • Share results of risk assessments + draft Risk Report with community • Identify strategies for risk reduction Resilience • Integrate Risk MAP information into local plans • Seek funding + implement mitigation/adaptation projects Alaska Arctic Policy Commission Implementation Plan, 2015 RECOMMENDATION 3D Anticipate, evaluate and respond to risks from climate change related to land erosion and deterioration of community infrastructure and services and support community efforts to adapt and relocate when necessary.
“DCCED’s Risk MAP program is a good start to identifying Execution and prioritizing risk, though as a FEMA-funded project it is very specific in the communities it can include.” “1.

Expand DCCED Risk MAP program and partner Legislative Actions with communities who are ready to take action.” Issues and Barriers In 2007, the Newtok Planning Group submitted a memo to the Immediate Action Work Group outlining the key issues challenging efforts to assist Newtok with its relocation.
Many of these were mentioned in the 2009 GAO Report: • No mandate for relocation assistance • No designated lead agency at State or Federal level • No strategy for relocation process • No dedicated funding source for relocation • Uncertainty in fulfilling NEPA requirements • Barriers to making infrastructure investments in threatened and unpopulated new communities • Strained local capacity and resources Issues and Barriers The following are additional issues identified: • Problems (reduced quality of life and increased public health issues) resulting from funding agency disinvestment when a community decides to relocate • The challenge of having to establish population to trigger infrastructure development.
This creates a backward planning process which is difficult to implement.

• The problem with having competitive processes for funding opportunities.

Funding for threatened communities should be based on level of threat and not on grant-writing capabilities.
• Lack of scientific data to inform community decisions on protection-in-place or relocation, as well as relocation site selection • Fully fund efforts to increase local understanding of risk in Recommendations threatened communities • Fund emergency shelters and evacuation planning in at-risk communities • Establish clear guidelines for when relocation is the right response • Ensure that infrastructure + facilities in relocating communities is maintained as long as residents have not yet moved • Formalize a State-Federal process to address relocation and other adaptation responses in threatened communities • Provide adequate funding so community plans can actually be implemented