Download Exhibit E Soundness of Approach Draft

Factor 3: Phase 1 Soundness of Approach
Consultation
The SIWG conducted a stakeholder summit on February 11, 2014 in Anchorage, AK where it received
input from the local government from our selected regions and communities. The meeting was
conducted via teleconference as well. (See dropbox for attendees and meeting notes.) The SIWG is
collaborating with regional and community leaders as stakeholders on developing this application.
Stakeholders specifically include the Newtok Planning Group, the Mayor of Fort Yukon, the City
Managers of Kotlik and Alakanuk, the Mayor of Galena. During the summit, stakeholders were
provided a briefing on the NDRC, and asked to provide feedback on relevant community impacts,
distress conditions, and unmet needs. Through regular consultation with stakeholders, the SIWG hopes
to capture the complexities of their communities and gain assistance in tailoring engagement strategies
to meet their needs. We have asked for their feedback through a survey of questions and matrixes. If the
State of Alaska is invited to Phase 2, our stakeholders will be engaging the whole community and
empowering local action, to help the SIWG plan for and meet the actual needs of the community or
region and strengthen the local capacity to deal with consequences of all threats and hazards.
Community engagement can lead to a deeper understanding of the unique and diverse needs of the
population. Through our stakeholders we will be able to foster collective learning from the
communities’ experiences. Stakeholders will have direct input for community (resiliency project
prioritization and development).
This discussion with stakeholders reinforced SIWG awareness that some communities have been
multiply impacted by not only eligible federal disasters, but local and statewide events and issues.
Impacted communities suffer from distressed conditions and lack of local government capacity.
1
In the disaster response phase, DHS&EM and DEC engaged with impacted communities on hazardous
materials and fuel spill cleanup. Distinct from disaster operations, DEC as part of its mission mandate
has engaged with affected communities with particular attention to potential sources of contamination,
such as wastewater treatment facilities or Brownfields.
Input from stakeholders, project partners, and/or citizens have focused the State’s proposal by
identifying and defining impacts, distress, and unmet needs. Input has provided input on potential
resilient projects and community conditions for project implementation.
Idea(s) or Concept(s)
The SIWG, partners and stakeholders are evaluating structure flood-proofing; elevation; relocation and
flood protection type projects to improve resiliency from flooding. The group is also assessing flood
protection wall and embankment stabilization projects to decrease risk from flooding and bank erosion.
Stakeholders are interested in obtaining effective basic water/sewer services; and gaining energy
efficient, seismically-resistant characteristics in residential, public and commercial buildings in the
course of resiliency projects. Finally, the group is interested in reducing vulnerability and gaining
efficiency of their water/sewer and power systems. Other options are relocation and/or centralization of
community services like sewage lagoons, power generation, water treatment, and fuel storage to reduce
impacts of flooding and permafrost degradation (effects of climate change). The group will leverage
previous work of DEC Alaska Water-Sewer Challenge, and the Disaster Housing Matrix to test new
technology projects to develop more applicable infrastructure and housing in remote areas. The SIWG
will leverage the combined work of state, regional tribal groups, and other non-profits to educate
communities on disaster preparedness, and improve capacity of local communities to identify risks
associated with climate change. The group will develop a program to finance acquisition and relocation
2
of homes/structures including one-on-one work with families struggling with decisions to leave their
traditional home sites.
The approach the collective group has developed serves as a baseline action plan. We expect the
approach will improve and adjust as needed over time by through application, planning, project
development and construction phase through stakeholder feedback. This approach has proven to be
effective through past and ongoing projects between local, regional, state and federal agencies. It is
optimal because it also flexible and develops and adjusts to meet project and/or program goals.
The State of Alaska has been committed to the improved resilience of its communities for decades.
Some of the resilience activities the state has already undertaken include; in 2011 the State signed into
law a goal of achieving 50% of electricity capacity generated by renewables by 2025 (25% had been
achieved by 2010); released (2011) a Renewable Energy Atlas for Alaska documenting the potential for
biomass, geothermal, ocean and river hydrokinetic, wind, and solar power in Alaska; operates a State
grant program for innovative renewable energy projects; incentives for consumer energy efficiency
through home weatherization, home energy rebate programs and implementation and enforcement of
state energy code for residential construction through state housing finance agency; research into new
technologies through University of Alaska’s Center for Energy and Power, Cold Climate Housing
Research Center, the Alaska Energy Authority; Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet produces four
reports (2007-2010) on Adaptation, Mitigation, Immediate Action and Research Needs to address
Climate change impacts on over 160 communities in Alaska.
Constant involvement of stakeholders; long-term monitoring of community health and social
vulnerabilities, wildlife migration patterns, coastal and riverine erosion, permafrost degradation, and
other metrics that track changes in the environment; institutionalizing the approach in assessing the
resiliency effects of partner-stakeholder project development will ensure ideas are feasible and effective.
3
Our approach is designed to improve the long-term resilience of Alaska communities. It will provide a
framework for assessing future risks, help communities plan and implement disaster recovery that
improves resilience with the goal of permanent resiliency. It is also scalable. If a community’s risks are
such that permanent resiliency is unreachable due to environmental factors or the escalating effects of
climate change or a community’s historical ties to the area, this approach will help them improve the
economic, cultural and structural resiliency of their community.
The areas of Alaska targeted with this application all have “high” measurements on the University of
Carolina’s Social Vulnerability Index. They are predominately Alaska Native, experience high
unemployment rates, public health issues and overcrowded living conditions. Improving the resiliency
of a community through better housing and building construction standards provide co-benefits such as
improving energy efficiency (reduces household living expenses); and indoor air quality (decreases
respiratory issue sin children and the elderly). Reducing the stresses and shocks on people of the
impending threat of climate change on their traditional way of life reduces social problems (domestic
violence, suicide, scholastic performance). Improved resilience improves the climate for private
business and government investment and therefore employment and other economic development.
Our approach is based on the integration of a cross disciplinary group of partners and stakeholders. It
uses technical experts to examine a wide range of interconnected traditional and innovative solutions.
Our approach prioritizes Alaska native community’s desires to maintain traditional methods of
supplementing subsistence food with a cash economy; improve individual health outcomes,
unemployment, social issues related to overcrowding, and crime and the uncertainty.
First and most importantly, through consultation with stakeholders, residents, businesses and community
leaders in each of the targeted areas, the SIWG will engage communities to prioritize their resilience
actions based on risk analysis and their own community priorities. Our proposal is based on fully
4
informing and engaging community stakeholders about current and projected impacts of climate change
and show them the pathway to resilience based on science and the traditional knowledge.
We are focusing on two Tribal Region target areas that are adjacent to each other in the unincorporated
areas of Western and Interior Alaska. They are coastal and riverine geographic areas. Positive benefits
include the integration of ideas tested in one area into another, through appropriate modification; crosscommunity discussions on outcomes. New research, technologies and methodologies will have
statewide benefit in the implementation of a statewide resiliency focus. Improved resilience in one area
could cause migration from less resilient areas and also serve as support services in disaster response.
This will prevent people from being displaced from their regions to more urbanized areas, where they
may encounter socialization issues.
Regionalization of different sectors is commonplace in rural Alaska due to the lack of economies of
scale associated with numerous small communities. Transportation to and from regional and local areas
are by barge or plane. These sectors are dependent on the price of fuel to deliver goods and services at
an economic price. As costs in the transportation and energy sectors change, so do the costs of goods in
and services in local communities, region wide. As energy, goods and services prices change so does the
affordability of housing and infrastructure development. Our approach includes regional stakeholders so
that issues associated with regionalization are not overlooked.
The partner agencies in this application represent the major state agencies involved in disaster
preparedness, response and recovery, community planning and capacity development and infrastructure
and environmental planning. Our plan has already identified other state and regional organizations that
will need to participate in order to fully address unmet needs and implement a statewide framework for
resiliency. We have already approached many other organizations which are very supportive of this
application and expect to get formal working agreements during the Phase 2 application. These
5
organizations represent transportation, alternative energy development, health and social services;
cultural resilience; and housing and infrastructure design. Lack of communication with our partners and
stakeholders during the implementation phase of our proposed projects will be the only barrier to
addressing vulnerabilities we are trying to address. This application is being prepared by the State of
Alaska and important cross jurisdictional regional partners. There are numerous mechanisms such as
the Sustainable Community Initiative; Newtok Planning Group; the Final Report of the State of Alaska
Climate Change Sub-Cabinet; Kawerak, AVCP and TCC regional tribal non-profits, Alaska Silver
Jackets Team, and the Alaska Chapter of the American Planning Association Resilient Communities
Committee which are already in place to support this application and its approach to resiliency.
Our overall approach is based on improving to the greatest extent feasible, economic, physical and
cultural resiliency. There is no difference between the short and long term, only the magnitude of the
changes that may occur. The climatic conditions that the Alaskan population faces are varied throughout
the four temperate zones in the state. Our approach is based on the collection of scientific and cultural
data, coordination of efforts by stakeholders, development of collaborative projects and policies that
filter response, recovery and development projects through the lens of resiliency, and leveraging the
work of all governmental, volunteer organizations into a coordinated delivery of vital services that will
enable endangered communities and traditional culture to adapt in the face of climate change. Climate
change is affecting every part of the Alaskan way of life from physical infrastructure to health, food
supplies, and the economy. Our approach to resilience looks at all these risks and the relationship
between them, when evaluating appropriate adaption and mitigation strategies.
Three communities in the two tribal areas participate in the NFIP- Emmonak in the AVCP Tribal Area,
and Fort Yukon and Galena in the in the TCC Tribal Area. None participate in the Community Rating
System. A key issue in Alaska is that most imperiled communities do not have access to federallyfunded flood insurance because they don’t have the ability to adopt and enforce minimum floodplain
6
management requirements. However, Alaska’s approach will incorporate education and outreach of best
management principles for floodplain management development to insure that communities who don’t
participate in the NFIP understand the benefits of using sound development practices.
The State of Alaska’s Climate Change Strategy (http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/index.htm)
outlines actions targeting the State and local levels:
The Adaptation Advisory Group (http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/aag/aag.htm) made the
following recommendations: The State of Alaska’s climate change adaption plan was outlined in the
March 2009 report from the Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change Immediate Action Work Group (IAWG)
and the Adaptation Working Group. The IAWG outlines the state’s recipe for success on addressing
climate change: 1) Develop a collaborative organizational structure focuses on the combined capabilities
of local, regional, state, and federal stakeholders on the problems at hand; 2) Discuss the nature and
extent of the potential climate change impacts and create an applied approach to addressing significant
impacts; 3) Identify the communities at risk, timeframe, and the true needs to address climate change
impacts; 4) Develop a methodology for prioritization of needs based on the risk to lives, health,
infrastructure, homes, businesses, subsistence harvests, significant cultural attributes, and the quality of
life; 5) Determine the true needs of coastal communities subjected climate change impacts; 6) Develop
measures that meet the stated needs and combine those measures into alternative plans for comparison.
The Adaptation Work Group identified 5 specific areas to form the basis of an adaptation plan for
Alaska: 1) Data collection, analysis and monitoring and promoting resilience in all infrastructure
development; 2) Sustainment of Alaska’s essential food, water systems, and cultural well-being; 3)
Evaluating climate change impacts and risk scenarios for the Alaskan economy, by improving mapping,
surveying, charting and imagery data; 4) Augment surveillance and control programs and assess climate
change impacts on water and food borne diseases, sanitation infrastructure, archeological sites and
7
gravesites; and 5) establish an Alaska climate change knowledge network and promote climate change
science through K-12 education.
8