Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCA5 Logo
    • About This Report
    • Guide to the Report
    • Report Credits
    • Companion Podcast
    • Additional Resources
    • About this Report
    • Guide to this Report
    • OVERVIEW
    • Physical Science
    • 2. Climate Trends
    • 3. Earth Systems Processes
    • National Topics
    • 4. Water
    • 5. Energy
    • 6. Land
    • 7. Forests
    • 8. Ecosystems
    • 9. Coasts
    • 10. Oceans
    • 11. Agriculture
    • 12. Built Environment
    • 13. Transportation
    • 14. Air Quality
    • 15. Human Health
    • 16. Indigenous Peoples
    • 17. International
    • 18. Complex Systems
    • 19. Economics
    • 20. Social Systems and Justice
    • Regions
    • 21. Northeast
    • 22. Southeast
    • 23. US Caribbean
    • 24. Midwest
    • 25. Northern Great Plains
    • 26. Southern Great Plains
    • 27. Northwest
    • 28. Southwest
    • 29. Alaska
    • 30. Hawai'i and US-Affiliated Pacific Islands
    • Responses
    • 31. Adaptation
    • 32. Mitigation
    • Focus On
    • F1. Compound Events
    • F2. Western Wildfires
    • F3. COVID-19 and Climate Change
    • F4. Risks to Supply Chains
    • F5. Blue Carbon
    • Appendices
    • A1. Process
    • A2. Information Quality
    • A3. Scenarios and Datasets
    • A4. Indicators
    • A5. Glossary

    • All Figures
    • All Key Messages
    • View All Report Downloads
    • Download Full Chapter PDF
    • Download Chapter Handout
    • Download Chapter Figures (.zip)
    • Download Chapter Presentation Package
    • Descargar en Español
  • Art × Climate
  • NCA Atlas
  • EN ESPAÑOL
Alaska
i

Thumbnail and enlarged maps of the US show the state of Alaska highlighted in blue. Alaska is one of the 10 National Climate Assessment regions. Orange shading in the enlarged map indicates Federally Recognized Tribal Land.

Fifth National Climate Assessment
29. Alaska

  • SECTIONS
  • Introduction
  • 29.1. Human Health at Risk
  • 29.2. Threats to Communities
  • 29.3. Threats to Livelihoods
  • 29.4. Built Environment
  • 29.5. Natural Environment
  • 29.6. Threats to Security
  • 29.7. Adaptation Efforts
  • Traceable Accounts
  • References
Previous Chapter
View All Figures
Next Chapter
Loss of sea ice, thawing permafrost, and other climate-driven changes in Alaska are transforming ecosystems, disrupting cultural practices, harming fisheries and other livelihoods, exacerbating health disparities, and placing infrastructure at risk. Rapid climate changes also threaten national security. Adaptation efforts are underway across the state, but their effectiveness will depend on substantial investment and capacity building in the communities most at risk.

INTRODUCTION

Alaska is warming two to three times faster than the global average.1,2 The physical and ecological effects of warming are evident around the state (Figures 29.1, 29.11). Glaciers are shrinking, permafrost is thawing, and sea ice is diminishing. The growing season is longer, and fish, mammals, birds, and insects have increased in numbers in some areas and dropped sharply in others. This combination of environmental effects has far-reaching consequences for people statewide. Following a brief description of distinctive characteristics of Alaska and an overview of recent climatology in this Introduction, the chapter emphasizes the societal implications of climate change for Alaska to a greater degree than in the corresponding chapters of previous National Climate Assessments (NCAs), with illustrative examples and recurring themes, such as salmon, governance, and adaptation.

Authors
Federal Coordinating Lead Author
Colleen Strawhacker, National Science Foundation
Chapter Lead Author
Henry P. Huntington, Ocean Conservancy
Agency Chapter Lead Authors
Jeffrey Falke, US Geological Survey, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
Ellen M. Ward, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Chapter Authors
Linda Behnken, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association
Tracie N. Curry, Northern Social-Environmental Research
Adelheid C. Herrmann, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy
Cana Uluak Itchuaqiyaq, Virginia Tech
Jeremy S. Littell, US Geological Survey, Alaska Climate Adaptation Science Center
Elizabeth A. Logerwell, NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center
Danielle Meeker, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy
Jacquelyn R. Overbeck, State of Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (through July 2022)
Darcy L. Peter, Alaska Conservation Foundation
Rebecca Pincus, Woodrow Wilson Center, Polar Institute
Alyssa A. Quintyne, The Alaska Center
Sarah F. Trainor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy
Sarah A. Yoder, Alaska Department of Health
Contributors
Technical Contributors
Patricia Chambers, Ocean Conservancy
Willow M. Hetrick, Chugach Regional Resources Commission
Michelle Michaels, US Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
Patricia E. Nelsen, US Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
Erin Shew, Chugach Regional Resources Commission
Elena B. Sparrow, University of Alaska Fairbanks, International Arctic Research Center
Richard L. Thoman Jr., University of Alaska Fairbanks
Mark F. Turgeon, Department of Defense, Climate Action Team
Vanessa R. von Biela, US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center
Review Editor
Micah B. Hahn, University of Alaska Anchorage
USGCRP Coordinators
Fredric Lipschultz, US Global Change Research Program / USRA
Christopher W. Avery, US Global Change Research Program / ICF
Recommended Citation

Huntington, H.P., C. Strawhacker, J. Falke, E.M. Ward, L. Behnken, T.N. Curry, A.C. Herrmann, C.U. Itchuaqiyaq, J.S. Littell, E.A. Logerwell, D. Meeker, J.R. Overbeck, D.L. Peter, R. Pincus, A.A. Quintyne, S.F. Trainor, and S.A. Yoder, 2023: Ch. 29. Alaska. In: Fifth National Climate Assessment. Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH29

Download citation: BibTeX     |     RIS

URL
Alternative text
Recent Climate-Driven Extremes and Notable Events
A map of Alaska and Northeastern Russia and surrounding bodies of water shows the location of major recent climate-related extreme events, as described in the caption. Extreme events and their locations are identified on the map by number, as follows: 1) a blue solid line extending east from southeastern Russian across the Bering sea to to the Alaska Peninsula (southwestern Alaska) marks the 1981 to 2010 average March sea ice extent; 2) a nearly parallel dashed blue line approximately 75 to 150 miles farther northeast marks the 2004 to 2020 average March sea ice extent; 3) a red dashed line running closely along the northeastern coast of Russia along the Bering Sea and extending east across the Chukchi Sea to northwestern Alaska shows the 2018 March sea ice extent; 4) a tan shaded area outlined in blue along the northwestern coast shows the location of a high concentration of harmful algal bloom cysts in 2018; 5) shows the location of a record wet summer in 2021 northeast of the Seward Peninsula (northwestern Alaska); 6) pink-shaded area outlined in red in the Gulf of Alaska is identified as the “blob” marine heatwave from 2014 to 2016; 7) shows the location of high ocean acidification off northern Alaska; 8) shows the location of high precipitation and flooding in summer 2019 in northeastern Alaska; 9) shows the location of a summer heatwave in 2019 in south-central Alaska; and 10) a brown-shaded area outlined in purple shows the location in southeastern Alaska of a record drought in 2017 to 2019 followed by an atmospheric river, flooding, and landslides in 2020.
Climate-driven extreme events continue throughout Alaska.
Figure 29.1. Climate-driven extremes and notable events have recently affected different regions of Alaska. These events have redefined expectations of regional extremes and challenged preparedness (Focus on Compound Events). March sea ice extent in 2018 was far below recent low averages (Figure A4.6).3 High concentrations of harmful algal bloom cysts were discovered in the Chukchi Sea (KM 29.1).4 A record wet summer occurred in northwest Alaska in 2021, and 2019 brought uncharacteristic precipitation and flooding on the North Slope. The effects of the 2014–2016 North Pacific marine heatwave (the “Blob”)5 have become clear (Figures 29.11, A4.11; Box 10.1). Ongoing ocean acidification in Arctic Alaska has contributed to fundamental changes in marine water quality (KM 3.4).6 In summer 2019, a record and persistent heatwave occurred in southern Alaska. A multiyear drought (2017–2019)7,8 in Southeast Alaska’s rainforest was followed by intense rain and destructive landslides.9 Figure credit: USGS, NOAA Fisheries, and Ocean Conservancy.

Climatologically, Alaska is notable for frozen water in the forms of permafrost, sea ice, land ice, and snow. Culturally, Alaska is home to 21 distinct Indigenous Peoples, comprising about one-fifth of the population. Alaska’s lands and communities are governed by a complex system of federal, state, and local agencies and 229 Tribal governments, as well as Alaska Native regional and village corporations. More than 200 communities are located off the road system. Most of these have year-round access by only small aircraft and summer access by ferry, cargo barge, or river vessel. Economically, Alaska is dominated by the public sector and by natural resource industries, with fisheries being the largest private-sector industry in terms of employment and oil and gas the largest in terms of revenue.10 These characteristics shape the ways that climate change affects society in Alaska (see also KM 29.2).

Responses to climate change in Alaska’s communities occur in the context of the governance systems divided among federal, state, regional, local, and Tribal agencies, with various and often overlapping responsibilities. About two-thirds of Alaska’s land is under federal jurisdiction, with another quarter owned by the State of Alaska and a tenth owned by Alaska Native corporations. Tribal governments, with few exceptions, do not have geographical jurisdiction but are responsible for many programs affecting Tribal members. Because climate change affects society in many ways, fragmented governance can frustrate a coordinated response or the ability of communities to address climate change in a holistic fashion (Figure 29.16). Some precedents, such as the Denali Commission (an independent federal agency designed to provide Alaska with critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support), demonstrate the potential for greater coordination of government support to better address community needs, if adequate resources and direction are provided.

Since NCA4 was published in 2018, Alaska has continued to experience rapid, widespread, and extreme climate-related changes in the form of ocean warming, record low sea ice,3,11,12 the world’s highest rates of ocean acidification,6,13 an increasing frequency of extreme events such as marine heatwaves (KM 10.1),5,12,14,15 and extreme snow and rain storms in winter (Box 29.2).16,17 These changes have reduced biological productivity, shifted seasonal timing of productivity, altered food web dynamics, and caused steep declines in prey.18,19,20,21 In many freshwater environments, these changes result in a combination of reduced summer streamflows, increased summer water temperatures, hypoxia, and decreased prey abundance, which are lethal to many aquatic species.7,19,22,23 There is no indication that these trends will slow or reverse in the near future (KM 2.2).19,24,25,26,27,28,29

Climate change in Alaska is driven by global trends (KM 2.1), but regional impacts are evident. The state is experiencing warming air temperatures,1 record-breaking droughts,7 reduced snowpack,1 shrinking glaciers,30,31 continued permafrost thaw,32 relative sea level change,33 record numbers of pollen outbreaks, increasingly destructive wildfires,34 changing snowfall amounts and seasons,1 and changing patterns of windstorms.35 Although year-to-year variability is and will be a feature of Alaska’s climate,36 it is apparent that detectable warming trends started in the 1970s.1,2 Annual average temperatures have increased across the state since 1971, with increases ranging from 2.4°F in Southeast Alaska to 6.2°F in northern Alaska,1 up to 2.6 times the rate of change in the Lower 48. Of the annual average Alaska warming for 1950–2017, 75% is explained by greenhouse gas warming.37 Heatwaves are increasing in the Arctic.38 A 2019 summer heatwave brought record-high temperatures to southern and Interior Alaska,39 with daily high temperatures exceeding normal by more than 20°F. This event had important community impacts such as wildfire smoke and fish kills, as well as uncharacteristically severe and expensive disturbances such as the Swan Lake Fire on the Kenai Peninsula.40 Alaska’s statewide annual average surface air temperature is projected to increase by 8.1°F (4.5°C) by the end of the century under an intermediate scenario (SSP2-4.5) and 14.2°F (7.9°C) under a very high scenario (SSP5-8.5), for 2081–2100 relative to 1981–2010.41,42 This projection is 2.5°F (1.4°C) greater than comparable regional projections in NCA4.43

Art × Climate
Quilted fabric and embroidery in shades of purple, orange, and brown show a forest of burnt trees surrounded by smoke and burning embers. Superimposed on this scene are two areas of contrasting fabric and thread: one in oranges, yellows, and browns depicting the forest as it burns and the other in greens, oranges, and yellows showing the roots of the trees and fallen leaves.

Ree Nancarrow
Spruce Smoke
(2012, quilted fiber)

Artist’s statement: Fire is a critical factor influencing the ecology of the northern Boreal Forest. Wildfires remove the duff and soil layers that insulate permafrost, and as the permafrost melts it releases methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This quilt depicts a flashback of burning spruce trees inset into bare ground and dead trees smoldering after a fire.

View the full Art × Climate gallery.

Artworks and artists’ statements are not official Assessment products.

Annual and seasonal precipitation totals are generally increasing, but the size and significance of the changes vary with dataset and location,1,44 with the most consistent increasing trends in northern Alaska, particularly on the North Slope (over 2.5% per decade).1 One- and five-day maximum precipitation is increasing in most Alaska climate divisions, but changes are statistically significant since 1957 on the North Slope (over 2% per decade) and in the southeastern part of the Interior (over 1.4% per decade). Recent unprecedented extreme rainfall and seasonal precipitation events have presented challenges in multiple parts of Alaska. For example, an atmospheric river (an atmospheric flow that causes extreme precipitation) in December 2020 broke all-time extreme 24-hour precipitation records in 11 Southeast Alaska communities and caused two fatalities and more than $33.5 million (in 2022 dollars) in public property damage due to rain-on-snow and storm runoff as well as wind and landslides. Alaska’s statewide average annual total precipitation is projected to increase by 20.6% by the end of the century under an intermediate scenario (SSP2-4.5) and 35.8% by the end of the century under a very high scenario (SSP5-8.5), for 2081–2100 relative to 1981–2010.41,42

Some of the most direct impacts of rising temperatures are on the cryosphere—snow, ice, and permafrost (KM 3.4),45 with substantial, consequential impacts on hydrology, ecosystem function, infrastructure, and human health and livelihoods. Across the Arctic, temperature increases are driving a shortened snow cover season, melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and less predictable sea ice extent (App. 4.3).1,45 Snowfall has decreased in autumn and spring but increased in parts of Alaska in the midwinter snow season.1 The Alaska snowfall season is projected to decrease across the state,46,47 and water entrained in snowpack is projected to decrease between 20% and 60% by the 2050s (2040–2069, moderate emissions) and between 40% and 90% by the 2080s (2070–2099, higher emissions) in most of the southern and western parts of the state. The highest elevations and coldest parts of Alaska, however, could see no net loss or even increases up to 35% (such as in the Brooks Range) in snowfall during the midwinter snow season.46 For March, historically the month of maximum sea ice extent, the Bering Sea ice extent has decreased by about 20,000 square miles per decade since 1957,1 and record minimums in 2018 and 2019 were associated with warm ocean temperatures.48 For September, historically the month of minimum sea ice extent, the Chukchi and Beaufort ice extents have decreased by about 27,000 square miles per decade and 31,000 square miles per decade, respectively.1 These sea ice losses accelerated in the mid-1990s. Permafrost degradation and thaw described in previous NCAs continues and may be accelerating due to recent warm winters and, for 2018, increased snow cover (e.g., Douglas et al. 202149), which insulates the surface from cold air above.50 Previously reported projections of permafrost degradation may underestimate permafrost thaw rates.51

These extensive changes affect Alaska’s society in many ways—in the context of Alaska’s existing geography, governance, economics, demographics, cultures, and social services (Figure 29.2). By disrupting familiar patterns and conditions, climate change exacerbates existing tensions and conflicts across the state. As coastlines and riverbanks erode, and as fish and wildlife distributions shift, potential responses include relocating communities or using new areas for hunting, fishing, and other uses. However, current societal systems can constrain the options available for responding to change (KM 20.2). Land and resource management policies and practices, for example, may prevent or restrict the movements of people and their activities.52 At the same time, the strong ties that Alaska Native Peoples have to their lands and waters are a vital consideration in any equitable responses to change.

URL
Alternative text
The Context of Climate Change Response
Two infographics illustrate five overlapping factors that inform responses to climate change impacts, as described in the caption. Colored icons represent the five factors: desired outcome (orange), climate change impacts (red), existing social conditions (blue), existing environmental conditions (green), and limitations to response capacity (purple). The top panel, titled Alaska salmon fishing, shows a map of Alaska and surrounding waters. Three labels appear on the map in southwestern Alaska: “spawning habitat” (along the Yukon river), “village fishing” (along the southwestern coast), and “marine feeding” (around the southwestern islands). Accompanying text describes each factor: 1) the desired outcome is to maintain salmon harvests that meet local subsistence and commercial needs; 2) climate change impacts and existing environmental conditions are warming ocean temperatures that have led to range shifts and population declines; 3) existing societal conditions and limitations to response capacity are research investment, monitoring networks, and stakeholder needs, as well as the constrained ability of fishers to follow shifting populations due to cultural connections, expenses, and regulation. The bottom panel, titled Denali Park Road, shows a topographic map of Denali National Park and Preserve that identifies park amenities, roads, and other features. A photo of a landslide overlaid on the map points to a location on a portion of the Denali Park Road that is shaded in gray. Major routes leading to the park, as well as the eastern portion of the road, are colored red. Accompanying text describes each factor: 1) the desired outcome is to maintain access to Denali Park and lodges inside the park; 2) climate change impacts and existing environmental conditions are that glacier thaw is causing landslides that block access; 3) the existing societal condition is that Denali tourism generates $600 million per year; and 4) limitations to response capacity are the availability of no alternative routes and high cost and time needed for bridge construction.
The response to climate change depends on the desired societal outcome and is shaped by existing societal and environmental conditions.
Figure 29.2. Two examples illustrate the interactions between climate change and societal and environmental factors for an activity important throughout much of the state and for a place that attracts many residents and visitors alike. Successful salmon fishing in rural Alaska villages is threatened by ecological changes affecting salmon spawning and survival (Boxes 29.3, 29.5). The $600 million annual tourism economy of Denali National Park is threatened by a thawing rock glacier that has damaged the access road (Box 29.4). Figure credit: (top) Ocean Conservancy; (bottom) adapted from NPS. Photo credit: NPS

Although Alaskans cannot stop global warming alone, they can choose to take actions that contribute to global efforts to limit climate change and be leaders in effective planning and adaptation (KM 31.3). From Alaska Native culture camps teaching climate and cultural resilience to courses on residential solar installation for homeowners and workers, Alaskans working together can accomplish a great deal. The effectiveness of cooperation, together with careful preparation and planning, was seen in the rapid and effective response to the November 2018 earthquake in Southcentral Alaska.53 If Alaska’s response to climate change remains fragmented, climate change will be intertwined with nearly all of the other persistent problems facing Alaska. If Alaska’s society pulls together, much can be done to create lasting benefits for today and for future generations, contributing to a prosperous and just society in the state (Table 29.1).


Table 29.1. The Intersection of Climate Change and Societal Context
Climate change exacerbates existing societal tensions, but responding effectively to climate change can yield many societal benefits, as shown in the examples here for each of the chapter’s Key Messages.
Key Message Examples of Challenges That Intersect with Climate Change Examples of Opportunities for Climate Responses with Multiple Benefits
29.1 Our Health and Healthcare Are at Risk Inequitable access to basic nutrition and physical and mental healthcare services Strong public health services
29.2 Our Communities Are Navigating Compounding Stressors Food insecurity Increasing community capacity and agency
29.3 Our Livelihoods Are Vulnerable Without Diversification High prices and scarce jobs, especially in rural Alaska Renewable energy and value-added industries
29.4 Our Built Environment Will Become More Costly High needs, high costs, and barriers to implementation Cross-community learning, priority setting by communities themselves
29.5 Our Natural Environment Is Transforming Rapidly Allocation conflicts and cumulative effects of human activities Ecosystem-based management and equitable participation
29.6 Our Security Faces Greater Threats Conflict at many scales and competition for limited resources Recognizing and supporting widespread contributions to security
29.7 Our Just and Prosperous Future Starts with Adaptation The societal needs listed above present challenges to climate change adaptation Cross-scale learning and cooperation to improve justice and equity

Our Health and Healthcare Are at Risk

Health disparities in Alaska, including access to healthcare and health outcomes, are exacerbated by climate change . The well-being of Alaska residents will be further challenged by climate-driven threats and by emerging diseases . Improving health surveillance and healthcare access statewide can increase resilience to events that threaten public health .

Many Alaskans, particularly Alaska Native Peoples, have a distinct connection to and understanding of the natural environment (KM 29.5) and depend on the land, sea, and natural resources for their economic activities, food security, health, culture, and overall well-being. This close connection to local ecosystems, combined with the geographical isolation of many communities and their resulting distance from healthcare and other services, creates a population particularly vulnerable to health impacts from the local effects of a changing climate (Figure 29.3) yet also fosters self-reliance and resilience.

URL
Alternative text
Climate, Health, and Well-Being in Communities
A diagram of nested circles illustrates the relationship between climate change and human health and well-being, as described in the caption. The outer circle is titled climate drivers and includes the following: rising temperatures, precipitation extremes, permafrost thaw, decreased sea ice, sea level rise, and extreme weather events. The middle circle contains the following three categories and related examples. 1) Exposure pathways are population displacement; food, water, and air quality changes; subsistence resource changes; infrastructure damage; compounding and cascading hazards, and ecological change. 2) Social and behavioral context encompasses age and gender, race and ethnicity, poverty, housing, education, systemic racism and discrimination, historical trauma, adaptive capacity, access to care, and preexisting health conditions. 3) Environmental and institutional context comprises ecosystem change, geography, food system change, land-use change, infrastructure, and subsistence resource management. The core of the diagram is titled health outcomes and includes mental health consequences and stress; food- water-, and vector-borne disease, heat-related illness, cardiopulmonary illness, and accidents and injuries.
The impacts of climate change on health and well-being depend on many social and environmental factors.
Figure 29.3. Well-being includes physical, mental, and spiritual health outcomes, all of which are shaped by many contextual factors, including environmental change and governance, social and behavioral characteristics and systems, and the exposure pathways that connect the changing environment to human health. All of these contextual factors are affected by climate change and occur simultaneously. Adapted from Balbus et al. 2016.54

Climate change in Alaska highlights existing inequities confronting many racial and ethnic groups, including discrimination, lack of access to healthcare, lack of indoor plumbing, and poverty.55,56,57 In rural Alaska especially, underserved communities often face food and water insecurity, inadequate sanitation, overcrowding in homes, limited transportation options, limited medical access, and significant geographical isolation.58,59,60 People living in such settings are disproportionately impacted by climate change (KMs 15.2, 20.1),61 and have limited options to respond to additional disturbances.

The lack of basic household sanitation facilities (Figure 4.16) contributes to health disparities, especially in rural Alaska. The lack of indoor plumbing was a key factor contributing to the high incidence of COVID-19 cases among Tribal communities (Focus on COVID-19 and Climate Change).62,63,64 More than 3,300 households in more than 30 Alaska communities lack in-home piped water and sewer services.65,66 In Alaska, the lack of water and sewer services is associated with multiple adverse health outcomes.67,68,69 Environmental factors such as permafrost thaw, river erosion, and flooding exacerbate inequitable health-related infrastructure, and climate change has created new challenges to building and supporting sanitation systems. The Portable Arctic Sanitation System, developed by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and tested in five communities to date, provides households with treated water for drinking and a handwashing sink, in addition to a waterless toilet system. These systems allow households to meet basic water and sanitation needs in situations such as damage to existing water and sewer infrastructure or community relocation.66 While not a replacement for a piped water system, these systems are a successful example of responding to climate hazards in Alaska (KM 16.3).

Climate change in Alaska is related to a range of environmental catastrophes, which can directly impact health in significant ways that may not be well known (KM 15.1). Flooding, for example, negatively impacts physical and mental well-being, with special and persistent implications for certain populations, such as pregnant people and children.70,71 In Alaska, these effects are compounded by preexisting disparities, such as limited access to healthcare (e.g., pregnant people in rural Alaska typically travel to urban areas for childbirth) and the lack of alternative housing options. In the aftermath of ex-Typhoon Merbok in September 2022, which resulted in widespread flooding of a thousand miles of Alaska’s coastline, people experienced loss of air travel service, multiday power outages, and damaged housing (often resulting in a subsequent need to move to a different community).72

Environmental disruption due to climate change can lead to increased rates of suicidality, among other negative mental health effects (KM 15.1).73 These effects, including a profound loss of connection to a landscape altered by climate change, can increase instances of mental illness and spiritual grief in affected populations and subsequent generations.74,75,76 Forced displacement inland due to rising sea levels, coastal erosion, flooding, and permafrost thaw disrupt social networks and increase instances of homelessness.77,78,79 Alaska Native populations already experience significantly elevated rates of suicide, especially among youth.80 Based on research with Inuit in Labrador, Canada, Alaska Native populations whose ways of life and culture depend on subsistence activities may be particularly vulnerable to negative mental health impacts related to climate change because of their deep connection to the land, exacerbated by existing disparities in mental health services (KM 16.1).81

Various health concerns connected to climate change have been raised by Alaska residents and public health officials (KM 15.1). For example, wildfire smoke exposure is associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes among Alaska Natives and rural residents.82 This increased risk is thought to be due, in part, to underlying differences in rates of chronic disease, as well as access to healthcare and resources for exposure reduction (e.g., air filters).82 Common exposure-reduction strategies may not be an option for many households. For example, few homes in Alaska have air-conditioning. During a wildfire smoke event that occurs at the same time as a heatwave, people must weigh the risks of opening a window to decrease the heat versus keeping windows closed to minimize smoke exposure. When developing adaptation strategies for climate hazards, it is critical to consider existing health disparities within communities, the relative capacity of individuals to adapt, and the potential to exacerbate existing inequities (KMs 15.3, 20.3).

The expanding geographic ranges of tick species and the potential implications for human health are another concern (KM 8.2). The blacklegged tick and western blacklegged tick, carriers of the bacteria that cause Lyme disease, are not established in Alaska, although the western blacklegged tick has been found on humans and domestic animals that have not reported recent travel out of the state.83,84 Current conditions in Southeast Alaska and some portions of Southcentral Alaska are suitable for the establishment of the western blacklegged tick, and models predict an increase in the suitability of tick habitat in many areas.84 While there have been no known locally acquired human cases of Lyme disease in Alaska, the risk of occurrence is expected to increase, especially for those who spend a lot of time outdoors.57

Rabies is another disease that can be transmitted from animals to people, with potential connections to changing climate conditions due to shifting ranges of host species. In Alaska, rabies is found in populations of Arctic and red fox populations along the northern and western coasts. During the 2020/21 winter, there was a widespread outbreak of rabies in western Alaska, with more than 35 confirmed cases in animals, compared with an average of four to five cases each year. Changes in sea ice and prey availability may have played a role by increasing exposure of red foxes to rabid Arctic foxes and thus spreading rabies to inland areas as well as along the coast.85,86

Climate change is also affecting the ability to dry and store food in traditional ways87 and increasing the potential for adverse health effects from processing and consuming fish and wildlife.57 Wetter weather inhibits drying of fish and meat, and permafrost thaw and flooding damage ice cellars.88 Additionally, human, marine mammal, and seabird health are increasingly threatened by harmful algal blooms (HABs), which produce a toxin that can cause severe illness or death when consumed (KM 10.1).89,90,91,92 The largest bed of resting cysts of HAB species in the world has been discovered in the Chukchi Sea.4 Warming ocean temperatures make these cysts more apt to hatch into massive and recurring toxic blooms.4

In general, there are limited conventional disease surveillance systems in Alaska for identifying, detecting, and monitoring climate-related hazards and conditions, as well as limited information on broader health impacts, such as the degree to which climate-related factors have impacted mental health. The development and sustainability of robust surveillance systems is hampered by many factors, including the state’s small population and large geographic scale, limited in-state locations with adequate laboratory and diagnostic testing, and other healthcare limitations, such as access to healthcare and disconnected health databases. To fill these gaps, several local and Tribal programs have been implemented, such the Local Environmental Observer Network, Southeast Alaska Tribal Ocean Research, and Indigenous Sentinels Network, which facilitate integration of community observations.

In addition to limited health surveillance systems for climate-related risks, there are also large disparities in healthcare access and services in Alaska. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted some of these gaps,93,94 although some responses to the pandemic created or strengthened health partnerships and surveillance, which may support longer-term action to improve healthcare and health outcomes around the state. Because more immediate crises, such as a disease outbreak, can reduce the capacity for responding to longer-term healthcare challenges, such as those posed by climate change, continued investment in these types of improvements in the healthcare system statewide may increase resilience to climate-driven health impacts.

Box 29.1. “I’ve Been Called to Pray”

Tragedies related to climate change, such as deaths associated with changing ice conditions, impact more than just those who are directly affected. Alaska Native communities, although often geographically spread out, remain intimately connected via cultural and family ties, social media, and other networks, such as churches (KM 16.2).

Iñupiaq Elder Gladys I’yiiqpak Pungowiyi, of Kotzebue, a predominantly Inupiaq town in northwestern Alaska, states:

I've been called to pray.

On Facebook, there are mothers, grandmothers requesting prayer for their lost loved ones who fall through the ice and their families who are going through a hard time. Especially when they’re not found.

I've been called to pray for people that are affected mentally. What's happened over the years is that a number of skilled hunters were lost when they went out hunting. Either they fall through the ice or just disappear. It seems like every springtime people start saying “Our men are going out hunting. Please pray for them.” It’s hard.95

URL
Alternative text
Gladys I’yiiqpak Pungowiyi
A photo shows a woman smiling up at the camera while seated in front of her laptop.
Strong connections between individuals and communities are vital in rural Alaska.
Figure 29.4. Iñupiaq Elder Gladys I'yiiqpak Pungowiyi is shown here using a laptop computer in Kotzebue, Alaska, August 19, 2022. Photo credit: ©Cana Uluaq Itchuaqiyaq.


Our Communities Are Navigating Compounding Stressors

Climate change amplifies the social and economic challenges facing Alaska communities . Resource shifts, coastal and riverbank erosion, and disproportionate access to services will continue to threaten the physical and social integrity of these communities . Increased adaptation capacity and equitable support have the potential to help rural and urban communities address Alaska’s regionally varied climate-driven threats .

Climate change affects all Alaska communities but in regionally distinct ways for urban areas compared with rural, predominantly Alaska Native, places. Lacking road connections, Alaska’s rural areas are more remote than rural areas in the Lower 48. About 79% of Alaskans live in urban areas.96 This concentration creates challenges for the development and maintenance of infrastructure in rural areas where economies of scale do not exist (KM 12.2). For example, there are large disparities in exposure to the effects of climate change and inequities in access to resources and capacity for responding to those effects.97

The limited reach of broadband internet access in the state is testament to this challenge.98 As of 2023, 46% of Alaska communities remain unserved according to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s minimum broadband standards.99 An additional 3% are considered “underserved,” lacking internet that meets the new baseline for functional service. Many fewer communities have access to affordable internet, with some paying as much as $500 per month with usage caps. Lack of broadband and cell reception diminishes access to healthcare (via telemedicine), educational opportunities, emergency response capability, and resilience to shocks from environmental hazards and extreme weather events,100 which are expected to increase with climate change.

As another example, the frequency of wildfire seasons in which more than 1 million acres are burned is increasing throughout much of western and Interior Alaska (KM 7.1; Focus on Western Wildfires). In addition to health concerns (KMs 14.2, 29.1), smoke can limit visibility and interfere with air travel. This disproportionately affects rural areas accessible only by plane, leaving Alaska Native Elders, other older adults, and those with existing respiratory ailments without a means to escape environmental stressors.34

Both urban and rural communities face significant infrastructure and access challenges related to permafrost thaw and erosion (KM 29.4). Rural communities facing relocation are among the hardest hit, as are low-income populations in urban areas. In the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB), a comparison shows that the average value of residential land101 with shallow permafrost soil102 is about 40% the average value of residential land borough-wide. Low-income populations in FNSB disproportionately reside in homes on or near permafrost-affected soils and are thus disproportionately impacted by damage resulting from permafrost thaw.

Alaska’s population is gradually becoming more diverse (Figure 29.5). The percentage of White residents dropped 2% from 2010 to 2020.103 The Alaska Native population increased nearly 10%, and the Black population increased 2%, but the largest growth was among residents with Asian heritage, whose population increased 32%. Much of the non-White population growth occurred in urban areas where, as in other parts of the United States, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) populations historically were subject to discrimination and exclusionary housing practices. Such discrimination continues to shape the character of Alaska’s urban neighborhoods today.104 More research could illuminate the disproportionate impacts of climate change experienced by BIPOC communities in urban Alaska, which, if consistent with national trends, are expected to be substantial. Increased knowledge of the current and historic inequities in relation to climate change and other environmental factors would help inform adaptation and mitigation measures that protect and uplift vulnerable populations.

URL
Alternative text
Racial and Geographic Distribution of Alaska’s Population
A map of Alaska overlaid with pie charts shows the percentage of Alaska population by race characteristics for all boroughs and census area boundaries, as described in the caption and text. A legend lists the following population characteristics: Alaska Native or American Indian (purple), Asian (pink), Black or African American (orange), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (yellow), other (green), White (turquoise), and two or more races (dark blue). Gray shading with dark gray outlines indicates Alaska borough and census area boundaries. Another legend indicates that the circle size of each pie graph corresponds to population size, with the following examples from largest to smallest: Anchorage, 292,090; Fairbanks North Star Borough, 98,455; Juneau, 32,099; and Sitka, 8,569. In most locations in central and eastern Alaska, White people comprise more than 50% of the population. Alaska Native or American Indians account for more than 50 percent in north-central and western locations. Asians comprise approximately 45 to 50 percent in southwestern locations and smaller percentages elsewhere. Black or African American people account for approximately 15 percent or less in northern, eastern, and southwestern locations. Two or more races comprise approximately 25 percent or less in all locations, while the category other accounts for approximately 5 percent or less in most locations.
The racial makeup and population density of Alaska's communities vary greatly by region, creating the potential for varied exposures and disparate impacts across subpopulations
Figure 29.5. The total Alaska population estimate in 2021 was 734,323.105 Urban areas account for the majority of Alaska’s population. Racial and ethnic characteristics throughout the state vary greatly by region, as do the impacts of climate change. Alaska’s urban areas are particularly diverse, and given a legacy of historic discrimination, there is still much to learn about the unique ways racial and ethnic subpopulations are impacted by climate change in Alaska and how these vary around the state. Circle sizes are proportional to population for each region. Figure credit: Northern Social-Environmental Research, Ocean Conservancy, and University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Food security is a major priority for the state of Alaska (Box 11.2).106 Food prices may be more than twice as high in rural versus urban communities, with considerably less variety.107 Alaska Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients receive the third-highest benefit per person in the United States, behind only Hawaiʻi and Guam. The number of households receiving SNAP benefits in Alaska increased 8% between 2019 and 2020.108 The vast majority of food Alaskans purchase is grown elsewhere, arriving via long supply chains (Focus on Supply Chains). COVID-19 highlighted the fragility of the state’s food supply and serves as an analog for the potential impacts of climate-related environmental shocks. During the pandemic, backlogged ports and restrictions on overland trucking through Canada made food and other essentials difficult to obtain. Remote regions of Alaska were among the hardest hit by supply chain disruptions after a primary air carrier in rural Alaska declared bankruptcy in April 2020 (Focus on COVID-19 and Climate Change). This left many rural off-road-system communities without a commercial airline to deliver mail and freight, including medications and food supplies.

FOCUS ON

COVID-19 and Climate Change

Climate change can increase the likelihood of pandemics like COVID-19 and worsen their impacts. Climate-driven changes in ecosystems increase the risk of emerging infectious diseases by altering interactions among humans, pathogens, and animals and changing social and biological susceptibility to infection.

Read More

Given the high cost of food and the vulnerability of rural transportation networks, subsistence activities (including hunting, fishing, and sharing) are critical in rural Alaska. This is especially true for Alaska Native communities, as well as for many non-Native and urban residents. About 45.4 million pounds of wild food were harvested in Alaska statewide in 2017, with an estimated replacement value of $262–$523 million (in 2022 dollars),109 not counting their cultural and spiritual value. Yet the success of subsistence harvests is influenced by numerous external and climate-driven factors. These include shifting distribution, abundance, and migratory patterns of fish, birds, and mammals that affect availability to hunters and fishers; rising fuel costs that increase the cost of hunting, fishing, and gathering activities; and changing weather, flooding, and dangerous ice that increase risks to those engaged in these practices (KMs 8.1, 29.3).87,109

Climate change will have some positive impacts on Alaska food security, particularly in the agricultural sector. A longer growing season, increased number of growing degree days, and increased yields are expected to enhance the share of locally grown foods consumed by Alaskans.110,111,112 On the other hand, pests, flooding, and ground collapse resulting from permafrost thaw will pose challenges.

Box 29.2. “We Had to Dig In and Out of Our House”

Snow and cold are expected in Fairbanks and Interior Alaska in winter. Rain is not. More than an inch of rain fell on top of feet of snow during the 2021 holidays. The resulting ice made roads impassable, caused power outages, delayed emergency services, damaged homes, and was linked to at least one highway fatality months later as roads remained dangerously icy into spring.113,114 State and federal disaster declarations were issued as well.115,116 More extreme weather events are expected in a warming Alaska.

Fairbanks resident and tax preparer Marjorie Casort recalls, “I shoveled my driveway seven times in five days. In April we are still feeling the effects, with an inch of ice stubbornly clinging to roads. Many of my elderly clients are housebound, unable to even cross the road to check their mailbox because of the dangerous ice conditions”.117

Social relationships are an essential component of resilience. Denali resident Erica Watson explained, “I trust my friends and neighbors to know what they need to do to stay warm, to check in on each other, to care for each other’s homes the way we would our own.”118

URL
Alternative text
Cross-Section of Snowpack After the December 2021 Storm
A closeup photo shows a vertical mass of snow that is illuminated from behind by the sun, revealing horizontal layers. Three orange lines overlaid on the photo indicate three layers that appear grayer than others in the snow mass.
A rain-on-snow event in December 2021 blocked roads and caused other damages.
Figure 29.6. Shown here is a 20-inch-high cross-section of the snowpack near Fairbanks, Alaska, taken on January 23, 2022. Red lines indicate ice layers from rain-on-snow events. The ice persisted through the winter, impeding travel for humans and moose. Photo credit: ©Bill Witte.


Our Livelihoods Are Vulnerable Without Diversification

Livelihoods, especially those dependent on natural resources, are at risk around Alaska. While advancing climate change has contributed to the collapse of major fisheries and is undermining many existing jobs and ways of life , it may also create some opportunities related to adaptation and response . Economic diversification, especially expansion of value-added industries, can help increase overall livelihood options .

Many jobs in Alaska are affected directly or indirectly by climate change—through alterations in abundance and distribution of fish species, through changes in access to lands and waters dominated by permafrost and ice, and through the cascading effects of a changing economy (Figure 29.7). Sustaining healthy livelihoods and ways of life in Alaska involves more than wages and salaries. Traditional cultural practices outside the cash economy include the harvest and sharing of fish, wildlife, and berries. Climate-driven changes to lands and waters, along with societal trends such as greater adoption of mainstream food practices, can reduce opportunities for subsistence harvests and thus affect cultural, nutritional, and spiritual well-being, especially for Alaska Native communities (KM 16.1).

URL
Alternative text
Climate-Sensitive Employment in Alaska
A chart using icons and text illustrates the projected positive and negative effects of climate change on employment in key sectors of Alaska’s economy, as described in the caption and text. A legend shows plus and minus signs, signifying positive and negative effects. Following are the key sectors, total jobs and wages per sector, and expected positive and negative effects from climate change: 1) Oil and gas, 9,900 jobs, 1.5 billion dollars in wages: positive and negative effect, further expansion may be tempered by efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions; negative effect, permafrost thaw negatively affects infrastructure. 2) Fishing, 62,200 jobs, 1.7 billion dollars in wages: negative effects, changes in fish distribution will disrupt fishing patterns, and additional fish stocks are expected to collapse. 3) Tourism, 30,400 jobs, 870 million dollars in wages: positive effect, length of summer tourism season will increase; negative effects, opportunities for winter tourism activities will be reduced, and disruption by wildfires may increase. 4) Agriculture: 3,706 jobs, 40 million dollars in wages and income: positive effect, longer growing season will enhance production; negative effect, drought and pests may increase. 5) Subsistence, statistics are described as 45.4 million pounds harvested, used by 95% of rural residents, and 227 to 454 million dollars in replacement cost of food: positive effect, some new opportunities will arise; negative effects, access to hunting and fishing areas may be reduced, some resources will become scarcer, and storing food in traditional ways will become harder.
Climate change is expected to have wide-ranging effects on key economic sectors in Alaska.
Figure 29.7. The figure shows examples of key sectors of Alaska’s economy that are expected to be affected in various ways by climate change. Many, but not all, of the changes are negative. Data sources: Oil and Gas;96,119 Agriculture;120 Tourism;121 Fishing;122 Subsistence.87,109 Figure credit: Northern Social-Environmental Research, University of Alaska Fairbanks, and Ocean Conservancy.

Climate impacts have severe socioeconomic consequences for Indigenous Peoples, small rural communities, and industries throughout Alaska.123,124,125,126 For example, the Yukon River king salmon subsistence fishery has been closed river-wide since 2020, with no expected opening date in the foreseeable future. This is the first occurrence of a year-round Yukon River subsistence king salmon closure. King salmon contribute 64% of all protein to rural Yukon River communities. A multiyear closure of the subsistence king salmon fishery due to climate change (Box 29.5) and the overharvesting of ocean king salmon via bycatch is disastrous to Indigenous Peoples’ physical, mental, cultural, and spiritual well-being.

Alaska’s commercial fisheries have also been impacted. Alaska’s seafood industry generates $6.1 billion (in 2022 dollars) in economic outputs,122 accounting for 60% of the volume and 31% of the value of the US fishery catch.127 A number of fisheries have been closed or dramatically reduced due to fewer fish (KM 10.2).128,129,130,131 In January 2022, the US Department of Commerce declared several fishery disasters because of the extreme economic impact of their decline.132 Climate change has had a large role in these fishery disasters.133

Climate change has negatively impacted the condition, growth, survival, reproduction, population biomass, and harvest of marine fishes,134,135,136 salmon,29,126,137,138,139,140 and crab.131,141 In addition, groundfish and crab distributions have shifted northward or offshore,142,143 following colder water, and the timing of groundfish spawning144 and salmon spawning migration145 has been altered (KM 8.1). Salmon are in double jeopardy because climate affects both their freshwater and marine habitats (Box 29.5). Changes in spawn timing will require changes in survey timing and stock assessments.146,147 Changes in fish and crab distribution will require adjusting survey locations and area-based management measures.148,149 Fishers will need to adjust the timing of harvest or switch to other harvest targets.150 Local economies can be resilient through income diversification such as participating in several different fisheries.151 Proactive adaptive management can help in the face of rapid climate change. One recent example is the management of Prince William Sound pink salmon during the extreme 2019 drought. After detecting high mortality early in the fishing season, managers limited harvest at critical times so that fish could successfully migrate and spawn.23

Warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns also affect the distribution of and access to terrestrial and marine mammals (KM 8.3).152,153 Increasingly volatile storms and changing ice and water levels are of immediate concern because they threaten the availability of wild foods, as well as safe access to these subsistence resources by boat, snowmobile, or all-terrain vehicle.153,154 Shorter durations of suitable conditions for spring marine mammal subsistence hunting in the Arctic due to loss of sea ice will require adaptation of traditional hunting practices.155 On land, more frequent rain-on-snow events can increase stress and mortality for wildlife,156 reducing availability. Migratory patterns for caribou and other species are also changing,157 again affecting access for hunters.

Berries are of high nutritional and cultural importance to Indigenous and rural communities.158 A recent survey indicated that, statewide, berry harvests have become less reliable due to declining abundance or increased variability.159 Changes in precipitation and temperature are expected to continue to affect berry production,160 and they may also impact pollinators.159

The intersecting demands of the climate crisis and the high cost of living in Alaska have forced Alaskans to creatively address interrelated challenges related to energy and heat, crisis response, and food equity and access (KM 19.3). Union electricians and laborers, private contractors and installers, and utility inspectors are training a growing workforce in clean energy industries.161,162 Farmers and artisans are providing local goods, training aspiring agriculturalists, and creating new employment opportunities in mariculture.163,164 In Fairbanks, community members are working with local healthcare providers to create crisis response teams and centers that focus on harm reduction and community care, needs made greater by climate change.165

Box 29.3. What It Means to Lose Salmon

Prior to the recent period of unusually warm water temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska, the Chignik fishery typically supported returns of more than one million sockeye worth nearly $10.2 million (in 2022 dollars) a year to the fishermen. In 2021, in part due to the effects of ocean warming, returns were so poor that some residents chose not to subsistence fish out of fear of harming the fragile run.166 Resident George Anderson explained how that felt: “We had something that we took for granted—that the fish were just always going to be there for smoking, salting, freezer, whatever. And to have that not be there for you is just something we were never prepared for.”166

Some nonprofit and industry organizations have tried to help by donating fish. But for the predominantly Alutiiq community, subsistence is not just about food, it is also a connection to place and family.

“It’s our lifeblood. Chignik’s going to go away if we can’t get this run back up to where it used to be,” said Al Anderson, another Chignik fisherman.166

URL
Alternative text
Unloading Salmon Sent to Chignik in Response to the Fishery Disaster
A photo shows a person standing next to coolers in front of the open cargo door of a propeller plane. In the foreground, cardboard crates are stacked in the bed of a truck, with labels reading “Keep refrigerated, fresh wild seafood product of Alaska USA.”
Donations of salmon provided much-needed food to Chignik and other small communities.
Figure 29.8. Boxes of salmon are unloaded from a small plane in response to the fishery disaster in Chignik, Alaska, July 11, 2022. Photo credit: ©Miranda Lind.


Our Built Environment Will Become More Costly

Much of Alaska’s infrastructure was built for a stable climate, and changes in permafrost, ocean conditions, sea ice, air temperature, and precipitation patterns place that infrastructure at risk . Further warming is expected to lead to greater needs and costs for maintenance or replacement of buildings, roads, airports, and other facilities . Planning for further change and greater attention to climate trends and changes in extremes can help improve infrastructure resilience around Alaska .

Power, water, and transportation infrastructure in Alaska varies from large-scale and modern in urban areas to small-scale and even rudimentary in some villages. Air transport depends on suitable weather for flying and adequate runways in the destination community. Transport by water, delivering fuel and other heavy goods to many communities, requires rivers or coastal waters deep enough for barges and adequate offloading sites or facilities. Most communities lack backup systems for water, sewer, and electricity, leaving them vulnerable to disruption. Emergency housing may be limited to the school gymnasium as the largest indoor space in the community. Many Alaskans, especially in rural areas, also depend on remote camps for hunting and fishing to produce food. These camps are vulnerable to climate-driven damage and disruption.

Buildings and other infrastructure throughout Alaska are at risk from flooding, erosion, and permafrost degradation (Table 13.1; Figure 29.9).167,168,169,170 More than half of Alaska's communities are at the highest threatened level according to the most recent statewide report.171 For example, on Alaska’s northern and western coastlines, communities face between 1 and 72.8 feet of erosion per year (KM 9.2).172,173 Recent progress has been made to understand local flood and erosion vulnerability for Alaska communities by determining erosion rates 173 and historical flood heights (Figure 29.15); however, these reports are not available for all communities. Given that 80% of Alaska is underlain by permafrost (Figure 8.5),174,175 regional infrastructure damages are projected to be high.176 Modeling erosion’s dependence on permafrost integrity and persistence has been an emphasis of recent research.177 However, the widespread lack of permafrost presence assessments, and the degree to which local erosion depends on permafrost responses, is a key source of uncertainty in forecasts for specific Alaska communities.178 Extensive coastal and riverbank erosion has also exposed old gravesites in western Alaska,179,180 and permafrost is integral for cold storage in many Alaska Native communities and camps.

URL
Alternative text
Coastal Erosion Rates and Processes in Alaska
A map of Alaska and an infographic illustrate coastal erosion rates and processes, respectively, as described in the caption and text. The map (top) shows locations along the coastline of northern and western Alaska. A legend shows maximum erosion rate in feet per year, with values ranging from 1.0 or less (light yellow) to 72.8 (dark red). The majority of locations show values of 1 to 9.8, while the lowest value (1.0 or lower) is shown in only one location. Locations with the highest values (9.8 to 72.8) are clustered mainly along the southwestern coastline, as well as one location (Kaktovik) in the northeastern corner of Alaska. Several locations are named, and their maximum erosion rate values follow, from high to low: Newtok, 72.8 feet per year; Napakiak, 42.0; Kaktovik, 27.9; Port Heiden, 25.9; Dillingham, 20.7; and Quinhagak, 18.7. The infographic (bottom) is divided by a vertical line in the middle. On the left is a coastal town, with houses perched close to a cliff and on a sandy beach. Heavy precipitation falls from a cloud, and the hill beneath, as well as land along the cliff, shows signs of erosion. Accompanying labels read “increased precipitation, flooding, permafrost thaw, coastal erosion, and sea level rise.” On the right is an ice sheet, with open water and ice chunks to the left of its border. White dashed lines in the water indicate loss of sea ice. Cracks appear in the ice, and a label above the ice sheet reads “rising air temperatures.”
Coastal erosion is a major threat around Alaska.
Figure 29.9. The figure shows rates of coastal erosion in selected communities (top) and coastal erosion processes in Alaska (bottom). Data are unavailable for many parts of Alaska’s extensive coastline, but erosion risk is high in much of the state (Figure 29.14). Coastal erosion processes are affected by many aspects of climate change (bottom), exacerbating the problem. (top) Adapted with permission from Overbeck et al. 2020;173 (bottom) adapted with permission from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Arctic Observatory and Knowledge Hub.

Alaska Native communities face an estimated $4.8 billion (in 2022 dollars) in costs to infrastructure from environmental threats over the next 50 years.181 These costs may be significantly underestimated due to limitations in current model-based approaches182, as well as to the omission of dispersed but culturally vital infrastructure such as fish camps. Various assessments have been completed to try to determine the cost of environmental changes to communities.178,181 The costs of responding to climate change are unevenly distributed, with rural areas facing greater costs and few benefits, in contrast to urban areas that will realize some benefits such as reduced heating expenses and where the costs of infrastructure maintenance will be spread over a much larger population base (KMs 11.3, 12.2).97

Communities dealing with flooding, erosion, and permafrost degradation are responding immediately as well as planning long-term adaptations, which generally include a combination of protection of infrastructure in place, raising buildings out of the floodplain or moving them out of vulnerable areas, and entire community relocation (which has been the case for Newtok moving to the new site of Metarvik) (KM 9.3; Figure 9.5).183 As mentioned earlier, however, relocation options may be limited by the availability of land that is culturally, economically, politically, and environmentally suitable. An additional complication is that no single agency has financial responsibility for the costs of relocation.52

Box 29.4. The Cost of Thawing Ground for Alaska Industries

The oil development and production industry on Alaska’s North Slope also faces challenges from thawing permafrost. Intensive efforts are now required to keep the ground cold and solid to support roads, pipelines, and buildings (KM 5.3),184,185 and these are short-term solutions. Thawing permafrost will drive up the costs of North Slope operations.184 Similar problems are expected with infrastructure elsewhere in the state, potentially reducing the viability of some industries.

Thawing ground can damage infrastructure, affecting many economic sectors around Alaska. In 2021, a landslide from a thawing rock glacier in Denali National Park cut off a section of the 92-mile road that takes visitors deep into the park (Figure 29.2).186,187 The rate of ground slumping and damage to the road had accelerated by summer 2022.188 A bridge over the damaged section of the road is estimated by the National Park Service to cost $102 million (in 2022 dollars). Other sections of the road are also at risk. Access to the park, which generates some $680 million (in 2022 dollars) in tourist spending each year, will be hampered at least through the 2024 season.

URL
Alternative text
Pretty Rocks Landslide, Denali Park Road
A photo shows a person in the distance standing in front of a collapsed road. The surface plane on which the person is standing is higher than that of the slumped portion of the road in the foreground.
Thawing permafrost limited access to Denali National Park.
Figure 29.10. A slump in the Denali Park Road at the Pretty Rocks location was caused by movement of the rock glacier beneath the road, September 16, 2021. Photo credit: NPS.


Our Natural Environment Is Transforming Rapidly

Alaska’s ecosystems are changing rapidly due to climate change . Many of the ecosystem goods and services that Alaskans rely on are expected to be diminished by further change . Careful management of Alaska’s natural resources to avoid additional stresses on fish, wildlife, and habitats can help avoid compounding effects on our ecosystems .

Alaska enjoys large, unfragmented marine and terrestrial ecosystems. This abundance makes possible hunting and fishing for subsistence use, cultural well-being, recreation, and commercial activities. At the same time, there are conflicts over land use and the allocation of hunting and fishing opportunities due to different land management regimes or distribution of harvest opportunities, with competing claims from traditional, commercial, and recreational constituencies.189 Climate change is expected to exacerbate existing challenges by shifting the distribution and abundance of fish and wildlife and by increasing disturbance to lands and waters (Figure 29.11; KMs 8.1, 8.2). Climate-conscious management efforts can help individuals and communities adjust but cannot by themselves address the underlying changes that will continue to occur.

URL
Alternative text
Major Recent Ecological Changes
A map of Alaska and surrounding waters includes labeled illustrations of species that have been affected by climate change, as described in the text and caption. A black dashed line in far northern Alaska shows the 2009 moose limit, while a blue dashed line farther south shows the 1920 moose limit. Text and icons at the right describe impacts. Under marine heatwave impact: “blob”-driven Pacific cod collapse east of Kodiak island, Prince William Sound salmon mortality in 2019 in the eastern Gulf of Alaska, recent crashes of Yukon-Kuskokwim Chinook runs in the southwest, Bering Sea unusual mortality events (seals, birds, 2018 to 2022), sea ice–driven Bering Sea crab collapse in 2018, and recent Bristol Bay salmon runs. Under migration and other shifts: white spruce expansion in the western interior and southwest, Arctic chum salmon expansion, moose expansion from 1920 to 2009 in the far north, caribou migration shifts in the northeast, early arrival of trumpeter swans in the southeast, and observations of record-size walrus herds on shore in fall of 2022 along the Chukchi Sea. Under outbreaks: Western blackheaded budworm and hemlock sawfly in the southeast, and spruce beetle in south central Alaska.
Climate change has caused or contributed to extensive ecological effects throughout Alaska in recent years.
Figure 29.11. Warming ocean waters, extreme heat events, and other changes, including the events shown in Figure 29.1, are affecting ecosystems across Alaska. Some species’ ranges are expanding, including chum salmon in Arctic rivers,190 moose191, and beaver192 in the Arctic (not shown), and white spruce in western Alaska (KM 8.2).193 Migration timings or patterns are changing, for example trumpeter swans in Southeast Alaska194 and caribou in the eastern Arctic. Marine heatwaves and reduced sea ice cover are affecting seabird, fish, and seal populations: the North Pacific “Blob” (Figure 29.1) contributed to Pacific cod collapse, the 2019 Southcentral heatwave affected Prince William Sound king salmon survival,139 and low sea ice caused or contributed to the collapse of crab fisheries and unusual mortality events for seabirds and ice seals in the Bering Sea region (2018–2022) (KM 10.2; Figure 10.1). In 2022, Pacific walrus hauled out in record numbers in the Bering Strait area,195 suggesting that the minimum population estimate may be higher than previously thought, even if the range may be shrinking. Insect distributions and outbreaks have also changed.196,197 In Southeast Alaska, outbreaks of western blackheaded budworm and hemlock sawfly have damaged forests in the wake of the 2017–2019 drought.198 The 2019 heatwave in Southcentral Alaska contributed to spruce beetle expansion in that region and extreme fire activity on the Kenai peninsula (KM 7.1; Box 7.1). Salmon runs responded variably: Yukon–Kuskokwim River king salmon runs have been decimated,139 while Bristol Bay has had record sockeye salmon returns. Figure credit: USGS, NOAA Fisheries, and Ocean Conservancy.

Climate change has negatively impacted nearly all aspects of the life history of commercial groundfish, salmon, and crab (KMs 10.2, 29.3). Arctic seabirds and marine mammals have also experienced reproductive failure, unprecedented mortality, and changes in migratory behavior. Extreme ocean warming and record low sea ice in the Chukchi Sea are affecting the entire food web199,200,201 and possibly transforming the ecosystem.143,202 For example, the lowest abundance of marine zooplankton in a decade was observed in recent warm years (2017 and 2019), combined with a decline in large, fatty Arctic species of zooplankton and an increase in smaller, less calorie-dense sub-Arctic species.203,204 In turn, fish such as Arctic cod and saffron cod, which feed on zooplankton, were not as robust.205 Subsequently, seabirds and marine mammals preying on these less nutritious fish experienced increasingly frequent reproductive failures and mortality. Emaciated seabird carcasses were found on beaches during extreme mortality events in the Bering and Chukchi Seas,201 and the body condition of ice seals has declined.206 In addition, the ranges of ice-dependent species such as polar bears207 and walrus208 are shrinking.

Art × Climate
Acrylic painting shows a polar bear in a snowy landscape looking toward a distant cruise ship, which is shown against a yellowish sky.

Pia De Girolamo
Invasion
(2020, acrylic on canvas)

Artist’s statement: My painting depicts a polar bear in the Arctic viewing a distant cruise ship. I was on such a ship, visiting the Arctic Circle in 2019. The polar bear's look is wondering and poignant; the cruise ship seems innocent, but it represents another human incursion into this place of beauty. Climate change has already affected the area; the ice that allows the polar bear to travel and find food is shrinking. Bear and boat are on opposite sides in this painting. We need to be on the same side as the bear.

View the full Art × Climate gallery.

Artworks and artists’ statements are not official Assessment products.

Ocean acidification is harmful to some Arctic phytoplankton and zooplankton.209,210 Laboratory studies have shown that the early life stages of commercial fishes such as northern rock sole,211,212 walleye pollock, Pacific cod,213,214,215 and salmon140,216 are sensitive to more acidic waters and to resulting food web changes.135,211 Laboratory experiments suggest that Alaska commercial crab species are also highly vulnerable.141,217,218,219,220,221 Although no studies of the impacts of ocean acidification on crabs in Alaska have been conducted, a study of Dungeness crab off California showed that shell dissolution was observed in areas of high acidification, reducing growth.210 Finally, seals, walrus, and marine birds may be affected by the vulnerability of their prey.222

Climate changes and extreme events are also contributing to terrestrial changes, affecting species distributions, habitats, resource availability, and human access (KMs 2.2, 29.4; Focus on Compound Events). Moose and beaver are colonizing previously inhospitable Arctic areas,191,192 in part due to temperature-driven increases in shrubs, and there is evidence salmon are colonizing streams where they were previously rare or absent,190 presumably due to warmer waters. Ongoing warming is also associated with rapid changes in vegetation. Alaska residents are also noting unusual plants.223 Decreases in berry production have been noted by communities in Alaska, related to multiple climatic drivers (e.g., Herman-Mercer et al. 2020160). Exceptionally high midsummer tundra productivity (“greening”) has been observed on the North Slope of Alaska, but lower productivity (“browning”) has continued in Southwest Alaska due to drying.224 In 2019, the rapid expansion of a spruce beetle outbreak in the Susitna Valley (ongoing since 2016) caused extensive spruce mortality over 1.6 million acres (Box 7.1),198 due in part to warmer temperatures increasing beetle development rates. In Southeast Alaska, hemlock sawfly outbreaks caused defoliation and mortality on more than 500,000 acres of forest, and a developing western blackheaded budworm outbreak is affecting Sitka spruce.198 Both are plausibly225 related to the unprecedented 2017–2019 drought in the region.

Landscape changes due to fires, permafrost, and their effects on other processes are climatically driven and increasing. Projected fire-driven transitions from conifer- to deciduous-dominated boreal forest226 appear to be manifesting at regional scales. Wildfires in 2019 (Southcentral Alaska)39 and 2022 (Southwest Alaska)227 burned large areas in places where fire was rare or with atypical severity, as has been seen in other parts of the western US (Focus on Western Wildfires).40 Overwintering fires, or “zombie” fires, which occur when uncharacteristically severe burning in hot, dry summers results in burning the following fire season, may also be increasing in the Arctic228 and Alaska.40 Permafrost thaw, including thermokarst (ground slumps or cave-ins)229,230 and lake drainage,231,232,233,234 is accelerating due to warming (e.g., Douglas et al. 202149), particularly with recent wildfires235,236 and uncharacteristically warm precipitation events.237 These changes are projected to affect Arctic ecosystems and hydrology in important ways.238 Across central and northern Alaska, changes in disturbance, vegetation productivity, and permafrost will affect the region’s role in the global carbon cycle.239,240 Current evidence suggests that carbon emissions from thawing permafrost241 will exceed the carbon captured by increased vegetation productivity.

Box 29.5. A New Era for Pacific Salmon Research in Alaska

When aquatic ecologist Vanessa von Biela’s career started in 2007, it was still a “warmer is better” era for Alaska’s salmon in their cooler northern range extent. Over the last decade, however, she has been among a group of scientists and local people who have found that salmon are reaching climate-driven tipping points. Stressful conditions for salmon include warm years with poor marine feeding,21,242 heat stress or drought during freshwater spawning migrations,23,139 and heavy fall rains during egg incubation.243 Stressors are minimized in oceans and deep lakes where mixing maintains cooler waters, high nutrients, and productive feeding, as well as in places where glaciers and groundwater keep lakes and rivers cold.29,244 Positive changes include new salmon habitat with retreat of glaciers and sea ice,143,245 although Arctic winters still limit major northward shifts.246 Salmon may be able to tolerate and adapt to stressful habitats, or they could move to find a better habitat patch. These options have important implications for people who depend on salmon. Investment in research by Vanessa, her colleagues, and local residents concerning new and emerging stressors can help inform climate-responsive management strategies that aim to improve outcomes for people.

URL
Alternative text
Chinook Salmon Research
A photo shows a person lifting a large fish out of a container holding water. A small hole appears on the back of the fish, and a marking on the container reads “US FWS.”
Research on the effects of heat on salmon can help scientists understand the effects of continued warming.
Figure 29.12. Shown here is a chinook (king) salmon caught for non-lethal research on heat stress in a fish wheel on the Yukon River, July 2017. Photo credit: Shannon Waters-Dynes, USGS.


Our Security Faces Greater Threats

Rapid climate-driven change in Alaska undermines many of the assumptions of predictability on which community, state, and national security are based . Further change, especially in the marine environment with loss of sea ice, will create new vulnerabilities and requirements for security from multiple perspectives and at multiple scales . Greater capacity for identifying and responding to threats has the potential to help reduce security risks in the Alaska region .

Security entails a sense of well-being and safety that is protected from or resilient to disruption. It is a combination of many interests and perspectives and reflects values such as a nation’s sovereignty and integrity (KM 17.1) or a community’s reliance on livelihoods and food sources that enable its people to thrive (KM 29.3; Box 11.1). Different interests are prioritized at the national/homeland, state, and community levels. Security actors at the national, state, and community level may face increasing demands for security services while also confronting the additional costs of climate change on physical infrastructure and operations, creating a double burden and making decisions even more challenging.

The Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Homeland Security are impacted by climate change.247 For example, coastal erosion, degrading permafrost, wildfire, and other climate effects will continue to impact DoD installations in Alaska (Figure 29.13).248,249 At the state level, increasing wildfire risk and climate impacts to infrastructure increase management costs to the state.176 Coastal erosion and thawing permafrost are affecting many coastal villages, reducing community security (KMs 9.2, 16.1, 21.3, 22.1, 29.4). Beyond Alaska, national policy responses to climate change, such as reducing dependence on fossil fuels, may impact energy sources, prices, and industry in Alaska, with potential effects on employment, household budgets, and environment.

URL
Alternative text
Climate Change Risks to Military Installations
Bar charts and a map of Alaska illustrate climate change risks to military installations, as described in the caption and text. In the left panel, bar charts show climate hazards to the following selected Department of Defense sites in Alaska: Clear Air Force Station; Eielson Air Force Station, Fort Wainwright, Fort Greely, Fort Richardson, Elmendorf Air Force Base, National Guard Wasilla Storefront Recruiting Office, and National Guard Anchorage International Airport. Y-axes show weighted order–weighted average (abbreviated WOWA) scores, with values ranging from 0 to 80. A color-coded legend shows the following hazards: historical extreme conditions (gray), land degradation (green), wildfire (red), extreme temperature (orange), riverine flooding (blue), drought (tan), and energy demand (pink). Drought and energy demand are the highest WOWA scores (from about 60 to 78) for all sites except Fort Richardson, whose highest score of more than 70 is for riverine flooding, followed by drought and energy demand scores of about 63 and 59, respectively. Historical extreme conditions are the lowest scores for all of the sites, with values ranging from about 2 to 6. Land degradation scores for all sites range from about 25 to 32; wildfire, from about 18 to 46; extreme temperature, from about 39 to 47; and riverine flooding (with the exception of Forth Richardson), from about 44 to 54. A map of Alaska in the right panel shows projected reductions in frost days. One legend shows that Department of Defense assets are designated by green dots and sites shown in the left panel are designated by red circles. Another legend shows projected reductions in frost days for 2070 to 2099 as compared to 1950 to 2005 under a very high scenario (RCP8.5), with values ranging from 39 to 50 (dark blue) to 88 to 102 (light blue). Projected reductions in frost days show an east to west gradient, with the lowest reductions of 39 to 50 days shown in east-central Alaska; 51 to 62 days in west-central Alaska; 63 to 75 days in portions of northern, western, and southeastern Alaska; 76 to 87 days in portions of western, south-central, and southeastern Alaska; and 88 to 102 days in southwestern Alaska and portions of south-central and southeastern Alaska. Department of Defense assets are located across all coastal regions of the state as well as east-central and south-central areas. The sites shown in the left panel are clustered in east-central and south-central Alaska and are expected to see reductions in frost days ranging from 39 to 87.
Climate change poses risks to military assets in Alaska.
Figure 29.13. (a) The bar charts display climate risk for selected Department of Defense (DoD) sites in Alaska, based on the higher emission scenario for 2035–2064 data from the DoD Climate Assessment Tool. The y-axis is the weighted order–weighted average (WOWA) score of each site’s exposure to aggregated climate hazards. For the Interior and Southcentral Alaska sites, drought and energy demand are the top climate hazards. At Fort Richardson, there is notably higher exposure to the riverine flooding climate hazard. In general, the scores are lower for the Southcentral region, indicating lower exposure to climate hazards. (b) Selected DoD sites in Alaska and projected reduction in frost days, illustrating the scale of the risk statewide (frost days are defined here as days with a minimum temperature at or below 32°F). The average annual number of frost days over the modeled baseline (1950–2005) ranges from 140–180 days in the Aleutian Islands to 260–290 days in the Brooks Range. In a higher greenhouse gas emissions scenario (RCP8.5), this will be reduced by about 20% in the Brooks Range and by over half in the Aleutians in 2070–2099. This will result in a longer ice-free season on the coast, leaving coastal communities vulnerable to storm surge more of the year. Portions of this figure include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright © 2020 Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. Figure credit: USACE and DoD.

At the national level, DoD installations face a range of climate-associated hazards. For example, wildfire is a constant concern for military installations. Climate-driven drought, wind, and fire can affect operations, training, assets, and wildfire-suppression activities for DoD installations in a variety of ways.248 The Alaska Fire Service and the US Army have recently been partnering to conduct springtime prescribed burns on military training lands in Alaska to reduce fire danger around military training targets.250

Climate impacts also generate national security concerns by altering maritime traffic in Alaska. Reductions in sea ice in Alaska waters enable more maritime activity. Changing and difficult-to-predict ice conditions, however, may require search-and-rescue activities that affect US Coast Guard presence and missions, as well as DoD civil support and military missions. Increasing maritime traffic in the Arctic251 intersects with the broader geopolitical context of competition with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and tension with Russia. The Russian government has been building (and rebuilding) military capability and capacity across its northern border, including sites near Alaska such as Wrangel Island.252 The PRC has expressed interest in Arctic governance, resources, shipping lanes, and climate science.253 In Alaska, recent concerns include PRC and Russian naval operations in the US exclusive economic zone; illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing especially in the Bering Sea; and marine debris.254

Rising concern about climate change and increased geopolitical competition in the Arctic are reflected in recent Arctic-specific military strategy documents (e.g., DHS 2019; DoD 2019; USAF 2020248,255,256). In Alaska, the DoD is developing new capabilities and capacities in response to these changes. For example, as of spring 2022, Eielson Air Force Base has 54 F-35 aircraft, the largest concentration of the most technologically advanced airpower in the world.257

The state of Alaska faces direct and indirect climate change impacts to security with regard to crime, economic impacts (KMs 19.1, 19.3, 29.3), environmental impacts (KM 29.5), and state capacity to respond to such security challenges. Climate change is also increasing costs for the state, from firefighting to infrastructure maintenance (KM 29.4), with potential adverse ramifications for the state’s ability to balance its budget and meet the needs of its citizens.170

At the community level, concerns center on food and environmental security (KM 29.2), as well as the safety of small boat operators and hunters navigating increasingly unpredictable and crowded marine and riverine environments (KM 15.1).87 Changing sea and river ice conditions are increasing the physical risks for hunters and travelers. Climate change may also drive intensification of human offshore activities, such as increased commercial shipping, that generate additional risks such as accidents or spills.258 Cultural practices are vital to well-being and security throughout Alaska (Box 29.3) but are often overlooked or minimized in fisheries management and in research on climate change and ecosystems.75

Box 29.6. Tribal Perspectives on “Security”

For Tribes in Alaska, climate change is yet another reason to exercise leadership and sovereignty on their own behalf (KM 16.3). In Bristol Bay, for example, the Native Village of Port Heiden has created Meshik Farm to improve food security and would like to build a fish processing facility too. Says Jaclyn Christensen, Brownfield Coordinator for the Tribe, “I worry about my husband making long trips in dangerous waters when he’s fishing, and we need an economic base for the community.”259

The Knik Tribe in Southcentral Alaska is deeply involved in land management. As Theo Garcia, the Tribe’s Environment and Natural Resources Director, explains, “We grow potatoes to provide food, we are cultivating native plants to support streambank restoration, and we are exploring ways to use waste heat to grow cheaper fodder for livestock.”260

As conditions continue to change, being able to adjust is essential to security, through Tribes’ own efforts and in partnership with others.

URL
Alternative text
Canned Red Salmon in Port Heiden
A close-up photo shows a canning jar filled with cooked salmon.
Salmon is vital for food security in much of Alaska.
Figure 29.14. A locally processed jar of red salmon sits in the sunshine in Port Heiden, Alaska, July 28, 2022. Photo credit: ©Jaclyn Christensen.


Our Just and Prosperous Future Starts with Adaptation

Local and regional efforts are underway around Alaska to prepare for and adapt to a changing climate . The breadth of adaptation needed around the state will require substantial investment of financial resources and close coordination among agencies, including Tribal governments . The effectiveness of adaptation planning and activities can be strengthened by addressing intersecting non-climate stressors, prioritizing the needs of the communities and populations experiencing the greatest impacts, building local capacity, and connecting adaptation efforts to economic and workforce development .

In recent years, Alaska has emerged as a leader of climate adaptation initiatives in the Arctic,261 many of which have been implemented by regional entities and municipal, community, and Tribal governments.262,263 Together, these efforts address climate change and intersecting societal challenges in ways that begin to lay a foundation for a just and prosperous Alaska. A wide variety of adaptation efforts has been undertaken statewide, from trainings and workshops to the implementation of hazard mitigation and climate action plans.262,263,264 Despite widespread impacts (Figure 29.15), support for climate adaptation varies among communities,263,265,266 and adaptation has not been a consistent priority for the state government (KM 31.1).263,267,268 For many Alaskans, the ability to adapt to current and projected climate impacts is shaped by social and political factors such as food and water security, economic opportunity, and the capacity of governance systems (KM 31.4).45,269,270,271

URL
Alternative text
Climate Threats Across Alaska
A map of Alaska shows the location of Alaska Native villages facing threats from climate change, as described in the caption and text. Major rivers are shown on the map but not identified. A legend shows the number of threats, with an orange dot indicating a village facing one climate-related threat and a red dot indicating a village facing more than one threat. The majority of all villages are scattered across all but south-central Alaska, particularly along the coast and rivers. The number of villages facing one threat is about double the number of those facing one or more threats. Clusters of villages facing more than one threat appear predominantly along the western coastline.
Statewide assessments show extensive climate-related threats throughout Alaska.
Figure 29.15. The map shows threats to Alaska Native villages from permafrost thaw, flooding, and erosion. Many communities face multiple threats, compounding the challenges they face. Adapted from GAO 2022.286

Many of Alaska’s Tribes have completed or are currently engaged in efforts that increase their ability to adapt to a changing climate (KM 16.3). These include applying for federal funding for climate resilience,272 conducting risk assessments,273 collaborating with researchers to bridge Western climate science and Indigenous Knowledge,274 and developing and implementing community- and regional-level adaptation plans.76,275,276 These activities are bolstered by the accumulated knowledge that has enabled Indigenous Peoples of Alaska and the Arctic to innovate and adapt to their changing environment for millennia.270,277,278 The traditional values and practices of Alaska Native cultures focus on well-being, cultural continuity, and a holistic, integrated worldview (Figure 16.3).75,270,279 They are often tied to components of adaptive capacity, such as environmental stewardship, communal pooling of subsistence resources, and mobility.280,281,282,283,284 It is important to emphasize, however, that Alaska Native Peoples’ ability to adapt does not mitigate the impacts of unprecedented environmental hazards or reduce the need to address the causes of climate change.

To achieve widely needed climate adaptation, communities must navigate a complex system of siloed federal agencies (Figure 29.16).285,286,287 Overlapping local, borough, state, and federal jurisdictions can create confusing or conflicting policy directives and impede local adaptation efforts (KM 31.4).277,288 Complex governance and resource management systems, many of which are imposed on Tribes through colonization, create challenges to adaptation efforts, which are most effective if they are timely, equitable, and community led. Also, the high adaptive capacity and self-reliance of Indigenous Peoples continues to be eroded by the ongoing impacts of colonization, including barriers to social networks and the transfer of Indigenous Knowledge.277,279,289,290 Tribes are sovereign nations that require government-to-government consultation. Communities with strong collaboration among governing entities, including through coproduction of knowledge (research based on equitable and respectful partnerships), may be better able to respond to the adverse impacts of climate change through partnership and flexible management of natural resources.279,281,285 Targeted coordination among and between federal, state, and Tribal entities would help build resilience to environmental threats.286

URL
Alternative text
Navigating Diverse Institutions to Meet Local and Regional Priorities
A chart illustrates the complexity of addressing local priorities through various levels of agencies and jurisdictions, as described in the caption and text. A brown box at the left of the figure lists the following local priorities: food sovereignty; elders and youth; workforce and economic development; health, sanitation, and well-being; infrastructure, and environmental health. The the right are the following four siloed institutions and their sub-tiers: 1) Federal Agencies: the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Denali Commission, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Army Corps of Engineers, and US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2) Federal Initiative, Justice40. 3) State Agencies: Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Surveys Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and Department of Transportation. And 4) local institutions: Alaska Native Corporations, Tribal entities, and municipal governments.
Adaptation is a complex process, requiring expertise and engagement with multiple entities.
Figure 29.16. Climate adaptation typically requires a wide range of expertise as well as engagement of those who are affected together with other entities, including but not limited to those listed in this figure.286 Alaska Native corporations were created by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.291 Local priorities are holistic, involving integrated environmental and social issues. However, institutions on multiple levels are often siloed with specific priorities, which can lead to duplication of efforts and hamper local efforts. Figure credit: University of Alaska Fairbanks and Ocean Conservancy.

Although there are various sources of state and federal funding and technical assistance available to support municipal and Tribal climate adaptation in Alaska, the effectiveness of such efforts is hindered by institutional barriers and limited capacity across various levels of government (KMs 31.4, 31.6).261,292 In both rural and non-rural communities, some residents have reported that climate adaptation has been impeded by a lack of local leadership or political will.265,266,293 Many communities and organizations have stepped up to lead mitigation efforts and address the inequities compounded by climate change in the absence of consistent municipal and state action. At least four municipalities (Anchorage, Homer, Sitka, and Juneau) have adopted climate action plans,264 with Fairbanks also currently at work on theirs. Seven Tribal governments from the Nome Eskimo Community to the Central Council of T’lingit and Haida have adopted climate action or adaptation plans.264

Community renewable energy initiatives like Thermalize Juneau and the Solarize initiatives in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kenai, Mat-Su, and Palmer help residential and commercial property owners install solar capacity.294,295,296 Local utilities such as Golden Valley Electric Association, Alaska Energy Light and Power, and Chugach Electric Association have worked on several renewable energy projects.297,298,299 Juneau Electric Vehicle Association specifically has worked to electrify public and personal transport in the region.300 Many communities around the state are building local community-supported agriculture markets, shared gardens, and supply boxes to supplement neighborhoods farther away from urban grocery stores.301 Tribal governments in Interior and Southwest Alaska delivered salmon to residents impacted by the Yukon–Kuskokwim salmon crash.302

Climate change can lead to divergent goals. While there are potential economic opportunities of a warming Arctic, such as increased marine traffic, growth in tourism, and resource extraction, considerations of relevant climate-related risks are not consistently incorporated into regulatory and planning processes.266,269 For example, across coastal Alaska, communities are increasingly reliant on hard structures, such as seawalls and shoreline reinforcement. These structural adaptations can provide a sense of security, but they lack the flexibility, long-term sustainability, and cost effectiveness of regulatory and ecosystem-based approaches.303

Climate impacts are being experienced within the larger context of social, political, and economic change in the Arctic (KM 20.2).281 Non-climate stressors such as food insecurity (KMs 29.1, 29.3, 29.5), limited employment (KM 29.3), substandard housing (KM 29.1), aging infrastructure (KM 29.4), limited access to healthcare (KM 29.1), the high cost of living in remote areas (KM 29.2), and limited search-and-rescue capability (KM 29.6) can affect a community’s capacity and ability to pursue climate adaptation.269,304,305 By identifying and addressing the intersections of climate risk and social and economic vulnerability, decision-makers can develop and implement adaptation initiatives that are scalable, innovative, and/or transformational.266

The need to center adaptation actions around and support Indigenous and local values, knowledge, and priorities has been widely identified as a critical component of community-based adaptation (KM 16.2).45,269,270,285,289,306,307,308 In addition to integrating multiple knowledge systems and building workforce development and Tribal capacity for climate resilience,309 climate adaptation efforts can be strengthened by fostering partnerships among diverse groups and supporting community-based leadership and monitoring.45,267,285 This need is recognized in White House guidance to federal agencies.310

Education for many audiences has long been an essential component of adaptation in Alaska. Numerous educational efforts in Alaska are bringing climate change information and understanding to K–12 students, undergraduate and graduate students, educators, and community members. The Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program has engaged more than 1,400 rural and urban Alaska teachers and over 20,000 students in climate change learning and citizen science in a culturally sustaining way since 1996.311,312,313 Scientists have used Alaska students’ GLOBE data.314,315 The Arctic and Earth STEM Integrating GLOBE and NASA project braids Indigenous and Western science to engage formal and informal educators, community members, and youth in projects relevant to their communities316, in partnership with the Association of Interior Native Educators. Other community/citizen science projects related to climate change focus on Alaska berries, freshwater ice, snow depth, and coastal community observations and knowledge.317 Climate education efforts for adults include an online course exploring climate change in Arctic environments, community training in the Alaska Tribal Resilience Learning Network through the Alaska Climate Adaptation Science Center, and peer-to-peer learning and knowledge exchange in the community-led relocation, managed retreat, and protect-in-place coordinator cohort. The Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning provides downscaled climate data, while the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy provides climate and weather webinars, graphics, and tools. New initiatives are also being developed.318

Box 29.7. Tribal Adaptation to Climate Change

Threats to traditional foods are existential concerns for Tribal communities:

We’re at a tipping point that people need to learn how to spell food sovereignty. — Dune Lankard, Eyak Athabascan, Copper River Delta (interview with Willow Hetrick, December 16, 2020).319

Food sovereignty includes the ability of communities to determine the quantity and quality of food that they consume by controlling how their food is produced and distributed. To meet this need, Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) and one of its divisions, the Alutiiq Pride Marine Institute (APMI), incorporate Indigenous Knowledge, Tribal perspectives, and Western scientific methods. To address health concerns, the harmful algal bloom program analyzes weekly water samples and warns Tribal governments of any health concerns. To bolster regionally important food sources, they place young clams on beaches with dwindling clam populations and are extending that effort to bidarkis (the local name for black leather chitons, Katharina tunicata). To help reduce the effects of carbon dioxide emissions, CRRC and APMI are developing kelp farming as a mitigator of ocean acidification effects, a carbon sink, and a potential source of income. These efforts show what can be accomplished with dedication and collaboration.

URL
Alternative text
Harvesting Kelp in Prince William Sound
A photo shows a person hanging kelp on a line against a backdrop of water and distant snow-capped mountains.
Kelp farming is an adaptation action that can reduce the impacts of ocean acidification, take up carbon dioxide, and provide income.
Figure 29.17. Kelp is being harvested on a boat in Prince William Sound, Alaska, May 15, 2022. Photo credit: ©Emily Mailman.


TRACEABLE ACCOUNTS

Process Description

The author team reviewed the Alaska chapters in previous National Climate Assessments (NCAs) and considered the guidance from NCA leadership to make NCA5 “people-centered.” The team recognized three broad topics: rapid biophysical change, compounding societal effects, and adaptation efforts. From these, the team developed seven areas for Key Messages and identified a number of themes to emphasize throughout the chapter, tying together the material in each Key Message. The team then reviewed the available information (as detailed below for each Key Message) to write the chapter. Where necessary, the team has cited reports and other non-peer-reviewed sources for specific information that is not available elsewhere. The author team agreed that the sources were credible and appropriate for the purposes for which they were cited. The team has not included likelihood statements (very likely, unlikely, etc.) because there was not a quantitative basis for doing so (Guide to the Report).

Key Messages from previous NCAs, and the overall guidance from NCA leadership, helped identify major areas where expertise would be needed. Diversity of age, race, gender, discipline, and perspective were also considered in selecting the author team, along with the ability to think broadly about connections among aspects of climate change. The chapter lead author, federal coordinating lead author, and agency chapter lead authors compiled a list of candidates and asked other organizations to suggest names so as to broaden the search. Once several persons were recruited as chapter authors, they too were asked about gaps in the team’s collective expertise, and additional needs were identified along with candidates to address those needs.

The author team met twice monthly to discuss the chapter contents and the writing process. Through these meetings, the team achieved consensus on the approach to take and then on the contents as the team wrote and revised. The team held an online public engagement workshop on January 12, 2022, with approximately 175 persons registered and a maximum of about 90 participants at any given time. The workshop had a wide range of participants, including Indigenous community leaders, academic researchers, government agency personnel, individuals in the private sector, and members of the public. The team also conducted other outreach meetings and workshops to reach specific audiences, such as through the Alaska Forum on the Environment and the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee.


KEY MESSAGES

KEY MESSAGE 29.1

Our Health and Healthcare Are at Risk

Health disparities in Alaska, including access to healthcare and health outcomes, are exacerbated by climate change . The well-being of Alaska residents will be further challenged by climate-driven threats and by emerging diseases . Improving health surveillance and healthcare access statewide can increase resilience to events that threaten public health .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

A great deal of research has been done on health status, access to healthcare, and other aspects of health in Alaska (e.g., Hennessey et al. 2008; Thomas et al. 2015; Eichelberger 2010; Hahn et al. 202159,60,67,82). The context in which climate change affects health is thus generally well established (KM 15.1).61 Attention to mental health and community health has been growing in recent years, providing an increasingly firm foundation for this Key Message (KM 15.1).74,75,76 Research specifically on the implications of climate change for health and mental health has been more limited in Alaska. The findings of that research are generally consistent.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Much of the literature about climate change and health in Alaska has focused on what is to be expected as the climate continues to warm. Evidence of the actual health effects that are occurring at present is less robust, although what does exist is consistent across studies. There is also a lack of studies documenting health effects, especially mental and community health effects specifically tied to factors related to climate change, and determining effective public health responses. More work can be done to document Indigenous Knowledge with regard to health and mental health in Alaska.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

Health disparities in Alaska are all too well documented (e.g., Cochran et al. 2013; Thomas et al. 2015; Eichelberger 2010; Sohns et al. 202155,56,59,60). Further challenges to health and to access to healthcare will compound those disparities. This can be said with high confidence. There is some evidence for the expected effects of climate-driven hazards and emerging diseases (e.g., Witmer et al. 2022; Hahn et al. 2020, Yoder 2018; Huntington et al. 202157,83,84,87), and the state’s experience with COVID-19 has amply illustrated what a new disease can do (e.g., Wong et al. 2022; Eichelberger et al. 202162,64). The course of climate change in regard to health, however, has many uncertainties, and thus the team has medium confidence in the second statement in the Key Message. Similarly, improved health surveillance and healthcare access can be expected to contribute to resilience statewide, but further experience and evidence are needed to show that this is the case. Thus, the team has medium confidence in the final statement of the Key Message.

KEY MESSAGE 29.2

Our Communities Are Navigating Compounding Stressors

Climate change amplifies the social and economic challenges facing Alaska communities . Resource shifts, coastal and riverbank erosion, and disproportionate access to services will continue to threaten the physical and social integrity of these communities . Increased adaptation capacity and equitable support have the potential to help rural and urban communities address Alaska’s regionally varied climate-driven threats .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

Considerable work has been done to document many aspects of Alaska’s communities, including social, economic, cultural, physical, and other research.96,97,107,108,109 Some work has been done, especially in Alaska Native communities, to document observations of and effects from climate change. The findings are in broad agreement that much is changing rapidly, with far-reaching effects on communities. The details vary from place to place and study to study. There is little disagreement in the literature base. Far less work is available about other segments of the population in Alaska, making it difficult to determine whether there are racial and ethnic disparities in climate change exposure and effects among groups other than Alaska Natives.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Little is known about the effectiveness of responses and adaptations to climate change among Alaska Native communities. For other demographic groups, and for Alaska Natives in urban environments, more research would be required overall to better assess how climate change is affecting and is expected to affect these communities. More work can be done to document Indigenous Knowledge with regard to community well-being in Alaska.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

The detailed demographic and other evidence that is available concerning community well-being in Alaska is consistent and has been documented repeatedly in the scientific literature and in reports by Tribal and federal agencies, giving the team high confidence in the statements in the Key Message. Risks to infrastructure are well known and not in dispute. The benefits of adaptation are addressed in greater detail in Key Message 29.7 and have been established repeatedly around the state.

KEY MESSAGE 29.3

Our Livelihoods Are Vulnerable Without Diversification

Livelihoods, especially those dependent on natural resources, are at risk around Alaska. While advancing climate change has contributed to the collapse of major fisheries and is undermining many existing jobs and ways of life , it may also create some opportunities related to adaptation and response . Economic diversification, especially expansion of value-added industries, can help increase overall livelihood options .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

The state and federal governments regularly collect relevant economic data, providing a firm foundation for understanding Alaska’s livelihoods and employment.96,120,121,122,123 Similarly, much work has been done to document subsistence harvests, providing reliable and consistent figures for production and participation in this vital sector of the economy of rural Alaska. The effects of climate change have been considered for many economic sectors, although to differing degrees. Not surprisingly, those sectors such as fishing that are perceived as being at highest risk from climate change have received the most attention. The findings to date are broadly consistent, allowing for differences in climate change exposure across different sectors.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Much of the work to date has focused on sectors perceived as vulnerable to climate change, including fishing and subsistence. Less has been done to examine areas of potential new opportunity (e.g., in agriculture), and more research could improve understanding of the effectiveness of various responses and adaptations to changing climate.

There is uncertainty about the economic consequences of climate-driven declines in commercial and subsistence harvest because the impacts of climate change can be moderated by economic dynamics and alternative harvest opportunities.125,126,143

A major uncertainty regarding climate impacts on groundfish, salmon, and crab is the unknown influences of interacting processes and parameters, such as competition, predation, density dependence, food web structure, habitat availability, and harvest.18,131,142,144 Thus, future research on the impacts of climate on groundfish, salmon, and crab should be interdisciplinary.

Another major topic that could benefit from future research is the mechanisms linking climate drivers to biological effects on salmon, groundfish, and crab.134,137,320 Elucidation of the details of these mechanisms could help improve predictions of ecosystem change in the context of future climate change. In addition, spatial variation in ecosystem response to climate change lends uncertainty to predicting local impacts.21,23

More work can be done to document Indigenous Knowledge with regard to livelihoods and the factors that affect them in Alaska.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

Documentation of risks posed by climate change to resource-dependent livelihoods is extensive and consistent in the scientific literature and in government reports, giving the author team high confidence in the first statement of the Key Message. Looking to the future involves greater uncertainty, and thus the team has medium confidence in the second statement of the Key Message. The third statement is supported by the available literature, but there is not a great deal of it, giving the team medium confidence.

KEY MESSAGE 29.4

Our Built Environment Will Become More Costly

Much of Alaska’s infrastructure was built for a stable climate, and changes in permafrost, ocean conditions, sea ice, air temperature, and precipitation patterns place that infrastructure at risk . Further warming is expected to lead to greater needs and costs for maintenance or replacement of buildings, roads, airports, and other facilities . Planning for further change and greater attention to climate trends and changes in extremes can help improve infrastructure resilience around Alaska .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

Many major assessments have been done concerning Alaska’s built environment, including economic studies of the costs associated with climate change and the risks from coastal and riverbank erosion around the state.170,171,173,174,181 The findings are consistent that costs will be high and that many communities face high risks. The timing of erosion and other damage is less certain, as is the effectiveness of various measures to slow or stop climate-driven effects.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

More work could improve understanding of the effectiveness of various responses to climate-driven damage to infrastructure. How response capacity can be created or provided, especially to remote communities, is an open question. The fact that models probably underestimate the actual costs and damages suggests another area for further work. These gaps contribute to uncertainty in estimates of the costs associated with infrastructure degradation, destruction, and collapse. More work can be done to document Indigenous Knowledge with regard to the built environment in Alaska. In addition to research gaps, knowledge fragmentation is a major hindrance to effective action. Reducing this fragmentation would require a greater effort to bring together scientists, community members and knowledge holders, and private businesses, especially engineering consulting firms that are already implementing practical solutions.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

There is little question about the damage being done to Alaska’s infrastructure due to climate change and little doubt that more damage will occur. Thus, based on well-documented experiences around the state (e.g., some of the major university and government reports cited in the Key Message text, which are consistent with one another), the author team has high confidence in the first two statements of the Key Message concerning what effects climate change is having on infrastructure and the further effects that are expected. The third sentence, about planning and adaptation, is of high confidence due to the evidence that planning can work. The team notes here that the question remains as to what is required to implement designs and ideas for protecting infrastructure to withstand the effects of climate change.

KEY MESSAGE 29.5

Our Natural Environment Is Transforming Rapidly

Alaska’s ecosystems are changing rapidly due to climate change . Many of the ecosystem goods and services that Alaskans rely on are expected to be diminished by further change . Careful management of Alaska’s natural resources to avoid additional stresses on fish, wildlife, and habitats can help avoid compounding effects on our ecosystems .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

Changes in Alaska’s marine, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, including effects of climate on species ranges, species viability, community structure, ecosystem structure and function, and landscapes and riverscapes are extensively documented in the scientific literature.1,39,143,192,198

The strong climatic controls implicated in many, though not all, of these changes may negatively affect the abundance and/or quality of ecosystem goods and services, such as ice transportation or many ocean and anadromous fisheries, but projections of these impacts are easier for some goods and services than others. Confidence is higher for those impacts that are directly mediated by physical drivers (e.g., temperature effects on sea ice45 or snowpack46) than those with complex drivers (multiple climate drivers and ecological interactions, such as berry production.160

The fact that some of the stressors are non-climatic and can respond to management choices or strategies indicates the possibility of avoiding some potential impacts through management. The literature on alternative strategies is limited; this is where synthetic and logical arguments can be made on the scientific information describing impacts and plausible future. But it is yet uncertain which management choices would be potentially effective, how they would be implemented, and whether they would be sufficient to decrease impacts.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

As with many impacts of climatic change, attribution of the fraction of the response due directly to climatic change is challenging. Much of the work is correlative rather than deterministic, and in Alaska, the datasets that exist for attribution work are severely limited compared to places in the contiguous United States (CONUS) because of the scarcity of long-term observational datasets that can be used for training downscaling methods. Thus, datasets downscaled from CMIP6 models were not available for Alaska when they were available for CONUS. Downscaling methodology that would accelerate attribution research is also limited. However, even perfect historical and future climatologies would not eliminate uncertainty—useful attribution and projections depend on strong impacts modeling and appropriate bridging to resource management, and understanding impacts on goods and services is not the same as direct modeling of species, community, landscape, and ocean impacts. A major research gap is adequate long-term physical and biological monitoring data needed to support and improve model forecasts. More work can be done to document Indigenous Knowledge with regard to the natural environment in Alaska, keeping in mind important questions of who is doing the documentation, how, and for what purpose. The considerations have implications for climate justice and Indigenous rights. Additionally, there is a need to better coordinate and improve accessibility of existing data to help identify data needs as well as make more effective use of what is already known.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

A great deal of scientific research, as reported widely in the scholarly literature, has examined ecological change in detail around Alaska. The confidence in ecological change is high and not very high because other non-climatic factors (such as development and other changes in land use) also contribute to ecosystem change and/or documentation of climate-driven change has yet to emerge for some observed changes.

Confidence concerning ecosystem goods and services is medium because 1) although impacts modeling for many species and processes indicates this is probably true, impacts modeling for goods and services is limited compared to direct physical and ecological impacts; and 2) uncertainty in both climate futures and ecosystem responses is large enough that specific predictions are elusive. Although the reasoning is sound, there is a limited body of peer-reviewed published evidence.

Confidence in the ability of careful management to help address climate concerns in the context of other needs and aims is medium because there is limited peer-reviewed literature documenting that climate-relevant management practices would be adopted. However, examples exist.

KEY MESSAGE 29.6

Our Security Faces Greater Threats

Rapid climate-driven change in Alaska undermines many of the assumptions of predictability on which community, state, and national security are based . Further change, especially in the marine environment with loss of sea ice, will create new vulnerabilities and requirements for security from multiple perspectives and at multiple scales . Greater capacity for identifying and responding to threats has the potential to help reduce security risks in the Alaska region .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

Some research and planning have been done by the branches of the armed services to assess the hazards from climate change in Alaska.248 Additionally, some work has been done to assess hazards to civilian forms of security, including food security.75,87,251,254 The literature is consistent in identifying multiple hazards and high uncertainties, which exacerbate risks to security by impeding the ability to plan effectively and efficiently.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Obvious risks such as coastal erosion and damage from thawing permafrost are well documented. Some other risks, such as the potential for wildfires and associated smoke to disrupt airborne operations, have been recognized. The assessment of many other risks, however, remains speculative and would benefit from further study. Of note here is the unknown degree to which climate change will alter, rather than merely have a modest influence on, geopolitical concerns and national security threats. More work can be done to document Indigenous Knowledge with regard to the various aspects of security in Alaska.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

Due to the extent and nature of climate change, as documented in numerous academic and government studies, there is high confidence that a changing climate has the potential to alter Alaska’s security at scales from local to national. Likewise, there is little question—and thus high confidence—that further change will continue to create this hazard. Exactly how the appraised risks will turn into actual effects is less certain in the available literature, giving medium confidence in the ability to develop and put in place effective response strategies.

KEY MESSAGE 29.7

Our Just and Prosperous Future Starts with Adaptation

Local and regional efforts are underway around Alaska to prepare for and adapt to a changing climate . The breadth of adaptation needed around the state will require substantial investment of financial resources and close coordination among agencies, including Tribal governments . The effectiveness of adaptation planning and activities can be strengthened by addressing intersecting non-climate stressors, prioritizing the needs of the communities and populations experiencing the greatest impacts, building local capacity, and connecting adaptation efforts to economic and workforce development .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

Peer-reviewed academic research that analyzes or documents climate adaptation successes and challenges is less prevalent than other sources such as online portals, gray and white literature, published adaptation plans, and other reliable sources of information. However, the body of literature is growing, and all of these sources are relatively consistent in their content. Several non-climate stressors have been identified in peer-reviewed literature as factors that can affect a population’s ability to adapt to climate change.270,304,305,321 Building local capacity and connecting adaptation efforts to economic and workforce development are emerging topics that have less evidence base in existing publications,322,323 but the authors felt it was important to include these issues based on observations and lived experience.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

As noted above, existing research gaps related to climate adaptation and planning exist in the academic literature; however, there are several areas of agreement among white and gray literature and lived experience, as documented in other credible sources. Research focusing on community values, priorities, and needs, including workforce development, is just emerging. Very little research has been done evaluating the implementation of adaptation efforts, especially through Indigenous evaluation methodologies.324 More work can be done to document Indigenous Knowledge with regard to resilience and climate response in Alaska. Additional work can also be done to learn from what is and is not working in ongoing adaptation activities.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

There is strong evidence from many reports and studies (see citations in the Key Message text), and thus high confidence, that local and regional adaptation efforts are underway and that more have been funded. The new influx of federal funding opportunities is expected to provide much-needed support, building on previous investments in rural Alaska, which together give high confidence that the demand for investment is substantial. As of this writing, little work has been done, however, to establish locally acceptable metrics and evaluation plans to assess the actual impact of funding influx. Given that research focusing on community values, priorities and needs, including workforce development, is just emerging, the final sentence of the Key Message has been assigned medium confidence.

REFERENCES

  1. Ballinger, T.J., U.S. Bhatt, P.A. Bieniek, B. Brettschneider, R.T. Lader, J.S. Littell, R.L. Thoman, C.F. Waigl, J.E. Walsh, and M.A. Webster, 2023: Alaska terrestrial and marine climate trends, 1957–2021. Journal of Climate, 36, 4375–4391. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-22-0434.1
  2. Markon, C., S. Gray, M. Berman, L. Eerkes-Medrano, T. Hennessy, H. Huntington, J. Littell, M. McCammon, R. Thoman, and S. Trainor, 2018: Ch. 26. Alaska. In: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D. Easterling, K. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1185–1241. https://doi.org/10.7930/nca4.2018.ch26
  3. Stabeno, P.J. and S.W. Bell, 2019: Extreme conditions in the Bering Sea (2017–2018): Record-breaking low sea-ice extent. Geophysical Research Letters, 46 (15), 8952–8959. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl083816
  4. Anderson, D.M., E. Fensin, C.J. Gobler, A.E. Hoeglund, K.A. Hubbard, D.M. Kulis, J.H. Landsberg, K.A. Lefebvre, P. Provoost, M.L. Richlen, J.L. Smith, A.R. Solow, and V.L. Trainer, 2021: Marine harmful algal blooms (HABs) in the United States: History, current status and future trends. Harmful Algae, 102, 101975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2021.101975
  5. Bond, N.A., M.F. Cronin, H. Freeland, and N. Mantua, 2015: Causes and impacts of the 2014 warm anomaly in the NE Pacific. Geophysical Research Letters, 42 (9), 3414–3420. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015gl063306
  6. Qi, D., L. Chen, B. Chen, Z. Gao, W. Zhong, Richard A. Feely, Leif G. Anderson, H. Sun, J. Chen, M. Chen, L. Zhan, Y. Zhang, and W.-J. Cai, 2017: Increase in acidifying water in the western Arctic Ocean. Nature Climate Change, 7 (3), 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3228
  7. Bathke, D.J., H.R. Prendeville, A. Jacobs, R. Heim, R. Thoman, and B. Fuchs, 2019: Defining drought in a temperate rainforest. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 100 (12), 2665–2668. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-19-0223.1
  8. NWS, n.d.: Historic Drought in a Rainforest: Southeast Alaska (2017–2019). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Juneau, AK. https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=8ce2db39efde4e589ec66692be45f90a
  9. Yates, S., 2020: Extreme Rain Brings Flurry of Landslides. LEO Network. https://www.leonetwork.org/en/posts/show/09e0b101-1489-44e1-8fea-221308a9661a
  10. Glomsrod, S., T. Wei, R. Macdonald, L. Lindholt, S. Goldsmith, and T. Matthiasson, 2021: Ch. 4. Arctic economies within the Arctic nations. In: The Economy of the North–ECONOR 2020. Glomsrød, S., G. Duhaime, and I. Aslaksen, Eds. Arctic Council Secretariat, Tromso, Norway, 51–100. http://hdl.handle.net/11374/2611
  11. Danielson, S.L., O. Ahkinga, C. Ashjian, E. Basyuk, L.W. Cooper, L. Eisner, E. Farley, K.B. Iken, J.M. Grebmeier, L. Juranek, G. Khen, S.R. Jayne, T. Kikuchi, C. Ladd, K. Lu, R.M. McCabe, G.W.K. Moore, S. Nishino, F. Ozenna, R.S. Pickart, I. Polyakov, P.J. Stabeno, R. Thoman, W.J. Williams, K. Wood, and T.J. Weingartner, 2020: Manifestation and consequences of warming and altered heat fluxes over the Bering and Chukchi Sea continental shelves. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 177, 104781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2020.104781
  12. Walsh, J.E., R.L. Thoman, U.S. Bhatt, P.A. Bieniek, B. Brettschneider, M. Brubaker, S. Danielson, R. Lader, F. Fetterer, K. Holderied, K. Iken, A. Mahoney, M. McCammon, and J. Partain, 2018: The high latitude marine heat wave of 2016 and its impacts on Alaska. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99 (1), S39–S43. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-17-0105.1
  13. Pilcher, D.J., D.M. Naiman, J.N. Cross, A.J. Hermann, S.A. Siedlecki, G.A. Gibson, and J.T. Mathis, 2019: Modeled effect of coastal biogeochemical processes, climate variability, and ocean acidification on aragonite saturation state in the Bering Sea. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00508
  14. Carvalho, K.S., T.E. Smith, and S. Wang, 2021: Bering Sea marine heatwaves: Patterns, trends and connections with the Arctic. Journal of Hydrology, 600, 126462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126462
  15. Cheung, W.W.L., T.L. Frölicher, V.W.Y. Lam, M.A. Oyinlola, G. Reygondeau, U. Rashid Sumaila, T.C. Tai, L.C.L. Teh, and C.C.C. Wabnitz, 2021: Marine high temperature extremes amplify the impacts of climate change on fish and fisheries. Science Advances, 7 (40), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abh0895
  16. Bachand, C.L. and J.E. Walsh, 2022: Extreme precipitation events in Alaska: Historical trends and projected changes. Atmosphere, 13 (3), 388. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13030388
  17. Lader, R., U.S. Bhatt, J.E. Walsh, and P.A. Bieniek, 2022: Projections of hydroclimatic extremes in southeast Alaska under the RCP8.5 scenario. Earth Interactions, 26 (1), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1175/ei-d-21-0023.1
  18. Hunt Jr., G.L., E.M. Yasumiishi, L.B. Eisner, P.J. Stabeno, and M.B. Decker, 2020: Climate warming and the loss of sea ice: The impact of sea-ice variability on the southeastern Bering Sea pelagic ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 79 (3), 937–953. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa206
  19. SeaBank, 2020: SeaBank Annual Report 2020. Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust, Sitka, AK, 129 pp. https://thealaskatrust.org/about-seabank
  20. Siddon, E., 2021: Ecosystem Status Report 2021: Eastern Bering Sea, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK, 249 pp. https://apps-afsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2021/ebsecosys.pdf
  21. Suryan, R.M., M.L. Arimitsu, H.A. Coletti, R.R. Hopcroft, M.R. Lindeberg, S.J. Barbeaux, S.D. Batten, W.J. Burt, M.A. Bishop, J.L. Bodkin, R. Brenner, R.W. Campbell, D.A. Cushing, S.L. Danielson, M.W. Dorn, B. Drummond, D. Esler, T. Gelatt, D.H. Hanselman, S.A. Hatch, S. Haught, K. Holderied, K. Iken, D.B. Irons, A.B. Kettle, D.G. Kimmel, B. Konar, K.J. Kuletz, B.J. Laurel, J.M. Maniscalco, C. Matkin, C.A.E. McKinstry, D.H. Monson, J.R. Moran, D. Olsen, W.A. Palsson, W.S. Pegau, J.F. Piatt, L.A. Rogers, N.A. Rojek, A. Schaefer, I.B. Spies, J.M. Straley, S.L. Strom, K.L. Sweeney, M. Szymkowiak, B.P. Weitzman, E.M. Yasumiishi, and S.G. Zador, 2021: Ecosystem response persists after a prolonged marine heatwave. Scientific Reports, 11 (1), 6235. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83818-5
  22. ACRC, 2020: 2019 Alaska Climate Review. Alaska Climate Research Center, 27 pp. https://akclimate.org/annual_report/2019-annual-report/
  23. von Biela, V.R., C.J. Sergeant, M.P. Carey, Z. Liller, C. Russell, S. Quinn-Davidson, P.S. Rand, P.A.H. Westley, and C.E. Zimmerman, 2022: Premature mortality observations among Alaska’s Pacific salmon during record heat and drought in 2019. Fisheries, 47 (4), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10705
  24. AMAP, 2018: AMAP Assessment 2018: Arctic Ocean Acidification. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Tromsø, Norway, 187 pp. https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-2018-arctic-ocean-acidification/1659
  25. Cheng, W., A.J. Hermann, A.B. Hollowed, K.K. Holsman, K.A. Kearney, D.J. Pilcher, C.A. Stock, and K.Y. Aydin, 2021: Eastern Bering Sea shelf environmental and lower trophic level responses to climate forcing: Results of dynamical downscaling from CMIP6. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 193, 104975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2021.104975
  26. Frölicher, T.L., E.M. Fischer, and N. Gruber, 2018: Marine heatwaves under global warming. Nature, 560 (7718), 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0383-9
  27. Hermann, A.J., K. Kearney, W. Cheng, D. Pilcher, K. Aydin, K.K. Holsman, and A.B. Hollowed, 2021: Coupled modes of projected regional change in the Bering Sea from a dynamically downscaling model under CMIP6 forcing. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 194, 104974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2021.104974
  28. IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2391 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896
  29. Shaftel, R., S. Mauger, J. Falke, D. Rinella, J. Davis, and L. Jones, 2020: Thermal diversity of salmon streams in the Matanuska-Susitna Basin, Alaska. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 56 (4), 630–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12839
  30. O'Neel, S., C. McNeil, L.C. Sass, C. Florentine, E.H. Baker, E. Peitzsch, D. McGrath, A.G. Fountain, and D. Fagre, 2019: Reanalysis of the US Geological Survey benchmark glaciers: Long-term insight into climate forcing of glacier mass balance. Journal of Glaciology, 65 (253), 850–866. https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2019.66
  31. Wolken, G.J., B. Wouters, M. Sharp, L.M. Andreassen, D. Burgess, J. Kohler, and B. Luks, 2020: NOAA Arctic Report Card 2020: Glaciers and Ice Caps Outside Greenland. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, 8 pp. https://doi.org/10.25923/nwqq-8736
  32. Romanovsky, V.E., S.L. Smith, K. Isaksen, K.E. Nyland, A.L. Kholodov, N.I. Shiklomanov, D.A. Streletskiy, L.M. Farquharson, D.S. Drozdov, G.V. Malkova, and H.H. Christiansen, 2020: [The Arctic] terrestrial permafrost [in “State of the Climate in 2019”]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 101 (8), S265–S271. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-20-0086.1
  33. Sweet, W.V., B.D. Hamlington, R.E. Kopp, C.P. Weaver, P.L. Barnard, D. Bekaert, W. Brooks, M. Craghan, G. Dusek, T. Frederikse, G. Garner, A.S. Genz, J.P. Krasting, E. Larour, D. Marcy, J.J. Marra, J. Obeysekera, M. Osler, M. Pendleton, D. Roman, L. Schmied, W. Veatch, K.D. White, and C. Zuzak, 2022: Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines. NOAA Technical Report NOS 01. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD, 111 pp. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report-sections.html
  34. Grabinski, Z. and H.R. McFarland, 2020: Alaska's Changing Wildfire Environment [Outreach Booklet]. University of Alaska Fairbanks, International Arctic Research Center, Alaska Fire Science Consortium. https://www.frames.gov/afsc/acwe
  35. Redilla, K., S. Pearl, P. Bieniek, and J. Walsh, 2019: Wind climatology for Alaska: Historical and future. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 9, 683–702. https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.2019.94042
  36. Hartmann, B. and G. Wendler, 2005: The significance of the 1976 Pacific climate shift in the climatology of Alaska. Journal of Climate, 18 (22), 4824–4839. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli3532.1
  37. Walsh, J.E. and B. Brettschneider, 2019: Attribution of recent warming in Alaska. Polar Science, 21, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polar.2018.09.002
  38. Dobricic, S., S. Russo, L. Pozzoli, J. Wilson, and E. Vignati, 2020: Increasing occurrence of heat waves in the terrestrial Arctic. Environmental Research Letters, 15 (2), 024022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6398
  39. Bhatt, U.S., R.T. Lader, J.E. Walsh, P.A. Bieniek, R. Thoman, M. Berman, C. Borries-Strigle, K. Bulock, J. Chriest, M. Hahn, A.S. Hendricks, R. Jandt, J. Little, D. McEvoy, C. Moore, T.S. Rupp, J. Schmidt, E. Stevens, H. Strader, C. Waigl, J. White, A. York, and R. Ziel, 2021: Emerging anthropogenic influences on the Southcentral Alaska temperature and precipitation extremes and related fires in 2019. Land, 10 (1), 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010082
  40. Jandt, R. and A. York, 2021: Wildfire is transforming Alaska and amplifying climate change. Scientific American, 325 (4), 42–49. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wildfire-is-transforming-alaska-and-amplifying-climate-change/
  41. Gutiérrez, J.M., R.G. Jones, G.T. Narisma, L.M. Alves, M. Amjad, I.V. Gorodetskaya, M. Grose, N.A.B. Klutse, S. Krakovska, J. Li, D. Martínez-Castro, L.O. Mearns, S.H. Mernild, T. Ngo-Duc, B. van den Hurk, and J.-H. Yoon, 2021: Atlas. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1927–2058. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.021
  42. Iturbide, M., J. Fernández, J.M. Gutiérrez, J. Bedia, E. Cimadevilla, J. Díez-Sierra, R. Manzanas, A. Casanueva, J. Baño-Medina, J. Milovac, S. Herrera, A.S. Cofiño, D. San Martín, M. García-Díez, M. Hauser, D. Huard, and Ö. Yelekci. 2021: Repository Supporting the Implementation of Fair Principles in the IPCC WG1 Atlas. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3691645
  43. Parding, K.M., A. Dobler, C.F. McSweeney, O.A. Landgren, R. Benestad, H.B. Erlandsen, A. Mezghani, H. Gregow, O. Räty, E. Viktor, J. El Zohbi, O.B. Christensen, and H. Loukos, 2020: GCMeval—An interactive tool for evaluation and selection of climate model ensembles. Climate Services, 18, 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2020.100167
  44. Bieniek, P.A., J.E. Walsh, R.L. Thoman, and U.S. Bhatt, 2014: Using climate divisions to analyze variations and trends in Alaska temperature and precipitation. Journal of Climate, 27 (8), 2800–2818. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-13-00342.1
  45. Meredith, M., M. Sommerkorn, S. Cassotta, C. Derksen, A. Ekaykin, A. Hollowed, G. Kofinas, A. Mackintosh, J. Melbourne-Thomas, M.M.C. Muelbert, H. Ottersen, H. Pritchard, and E.A.G. Schuur, 2022: Ch. 3. Polar Regions. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Pörtner, H.O., D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, and N.M. Weyer, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 203–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.005
  46. Littell, J.S., S.A. McAfee, and G.D. Hayward, 2018: Alaska snowpack response to climate change: Statewide snowfall equivalent and snowpack water scenarios. Water, 10 (5), 668. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10050668
  47. Mudryk, L., M. Santolaria-Otín, G. Krinner, M. Ménégoz, C. Derksen, C. Brutel-Vuilmet, M. Brady, and R. Essery, 2020: Historical Northern Hemisphere snow cover trends and projected changes in the CMIP6 multi-model ensemble. Cryosphere, 14 (7), 2495–2514. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-2495-2020
  48. Thoman, R.L., U.S. Bhatt, P.A. Bieniek, B.R. Brettschneider, M. Brubaker, S.L. Danielson, Z. Labe, R. Lader, W.N. Meier, G. Sheffield, and J.E. Walsh, 2020: The record low Bering Sea ice extent in 2018: Context, impacts, and an assessment of the role of anthropogenic climate change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 101 (1), S53–S58. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-19-0175.1
  49. Douglas, T.A., C.A. Hiemstra, J.E. Anderson, R.A. Barbato, K.L. Bjella, E.J. Deeb, A.B. Gelvin, P.E. Nelsen, S.D. Newman, S.P. Saari, and A.M. Wagner, 2021: Recent degradation of interior Alaska permafrost mapped with ground surveys, geophysics, deep drilling, and repeat airborne lidar. Cryosphere, 15 (8), 3555–3575. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-3555-2021
  50. Osterkamp, T.E., M.T. Jorgenson, E.A.G. Schuur, Y.L. Shur, M.Z. Kanevskiy, J.G. Vogel, and V.E. Tumskoy, 2009: Physical and ecological changes associated with warming permafrost and thermokarst in interior Alaska. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 20 (3), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.656
  51. Farquharson, L.M., V.E. Romanovsky, A. Kholodov, and D. Nicolsky, 2022: Sub-aerial talik formation observed across the discontinuous permafrost zone of Alaska. Nature Geoscience, 15 (6), 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00952-z
  52. Marino, E., 2015: Fierce Climate, Sacred Ground: An Ethnography of Climate Change in Shishmaref, Alaska. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, AK, 122 pp. https://upcolorado.com/university-of-alaska-press/item/5674-fierce-climate-sacred-ground
  53. KTOO, 2018: Major earthquake damages buildings and roads in Anchorage. KTOO Public Media, November 30, 2018. https://www.ktoo.org/2018/11/30/6-7-magnitude-earthquake-rocks-buildings-in-anchorage/
  54. Balbus, J., A. Crimmins, J.L. Gamble, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, S. Saha, and M.C. Sarofim, 2016: Ch. 1. Introduction: Climate change and human health. In: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.7930/j0vx0dfw
  55. Cochran, P., O.H. Huntington, C. Pungowiyi, S. Tom, F.S. Chapin, III, H.P. Huntington, N.G. Maynard, and S.F. Trainor, 2013: Indigenous frameworks for observing and responding to climate change in Alaska. Climatic Change, 120 (3), 557–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0735-2
  56. Sohns, A., J.D. Ford, J. Adamowski, and B.E. Robinson, 2021: Participatory modeling of water vulnerability in remote Alaskan households using causal loop diagrams. Environmental Management, 67 (1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01387-1
  57. Yoder, S., 2018: Assessment of the potential health impacts of climate change in Alaska. State of Alaska Epidemiology Bulletin, 20 (1). https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature287905
  58. Driscoll, D.L., E. Mitchell, R. Barker, J.M. Johnston, and S. Renes, 2016: Assessing the health effects of climate change in Alaska with community-based surveillance. Climatic Change, 137 (3), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1687-0
  59. Eichelberger, L.P., 2010: Living in utility scarcity: Energy and water insecurity in northwest Alaska. American Journal of Public Health, 100 (6), 1010–1018. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2009.160846
  60. Thomas, T.K., T. Ritter, D. Bruden, M. Bruce, K. Byrd, R. Goldberger, J. Dobson, K. Hickel, J. Smith, and T. Hennessy, 2015: Impact of providing in-home water service on the rates of infectious diseases: Results from four communities in Western Alaska. Journal of Water and Health, 14 (1), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2015.110
  61. OCCHE, 2022: Climate Change and Health Equity. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Climate Change and Health Equity. https://www.hhs.gov/climate-change-health-equity-environmental-justice/climate-change-health-equity/index.html
  62. Eichelberger, L., S. Dev, T. Howe, D.L. Barnes, E. Bortz, B.R. Briggs, P. Cochran, A.D. Dotson, D.M. Drown, M.B. Hahn, K. Mattos, and S. Aggarwal, 2021: Implications of inadequate water and sanitation infrastructure for community spread of COVID-19 in remote Alaskan communities. Science of The Total Environment, 776, 145842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145842
  63. Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., N.E. Barceló, R. Akee, and S.R. Carroll, 2020: American Indian reservations and COVID-19: Correlates of early infection rates in the pandemic. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 26 (4), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.0000000000001206
  64. Wong, M.S., D.M. Upchurch, W.N. Steers, T.P. Haderlein, A.T. Yuan, and D.L. Washington, 2022: The role of community-level factors on disparities in COVID-19 infection among American Indian/Alaska Native veterans. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 9 (5), 1861–1872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-021-01123-3
  65. ADEC, 2013: Alaska Water and Sewer Challenge. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. http://watersewerchallenge.alaska.gov/
  66. ANTHC, 2019: Portable Alternative Sanitation System Connects In-Home Sanitation Systems Where It Was Impossible Before. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. https://www.anthc.org/news/portable-alternative-sanitation-system-connects-in-home-sanitation-systems-where-it-was-impossible-before/
  67. Hennessy, T.W., T. Ritter, R.C. Holman, D.L. Bruden, K.L. Yorita, L. Bulkow, J.E. Cheek, R.J. Singleton, and J. Smith, 2008: The relationship between in-home water service and the risk of respiratory tract, skin, and gastrointestinal tract infections among rural Alaska natives. American Journal of Public Health, 98 (11), 2072–2078. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2007.115618
  68. Hicks, K.L., S.K. Robler, A. Platt, S.N. Morton, J.R. Egger, and S.D. Emmett, 2023: Environmental factors for hearing loss and middle ear disease in Alaska Native children and adolescents: A cross-sectional analysis from a cluster randomized trial. Ear and Hearing, 44 (1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001265
  69. Mosites, E., B. Lefferts, S. Seeman, G. January, J. Dobson, D. Fuente, M. Bruce, T. Thomas, and T. Hennessy, 2020: Community water service and incidence of respiratory, skin, and gastrointestinal infections in rural Alaska, 2013–2015. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 225, 113475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113475
  70. Brock, R.L., M.W. O'Hara, K.J. Hart, J.E. McCabe-Beane, J.A. Williamson, A. Brunet, D.P. Laplante, C. Yu, and S. King, 2015: Peritraumatic distress mediates the effect of severity of disaster exposure on perinatal depression: The Iowa flood study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28 (6), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22056
  71. Mallett, L.H. and R.A. Etzel, 2018: Flooding: What is the impact on pregnancy and child health? Disasters, 42 (3), 432–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12256
  72. Thoman, R., 2022: Typhoon Merbok, fueled by unusually warm Pacific Ocean, pounded Alaska’s vulnerable coastal communities at a critical time. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/typhoon-merbok-fueled-by-unusually-warm-pacific-ocean-pounded-alaskas-vulnerable-coastal-communities-at-a-critical-time-190898
  73. Cunsolo, A. and N.R. Ellis, 2018: Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nature Climate Change, 8 (4), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0092-2
  74. Cianconi, P., S. Betrò, and L. Janiri, 2020: The impact of climate change on mental health: A systematic descriptive review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00074
  75. Donkersloot, R., J.C. Black, C. Carothers, D. Ringer, W. Justin, P.M. Clay, M.R. Poe, E.R. Gavenus, W. Voinot-Baron, C. Stevens, M. Williams, J. Raymond-Yakoubian, F. Christiansen, S.J. Breslow, S.J. Langdon, J.M. Coleman, and S.J. Clark, 2020: Assessing the sustainability and equity of Alaska salmon fisheries through a well-being framework. Ecology and Society, 25 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-11549-250218
  76. Oscarville Traditional Village, 2019: Pektayiinata = We Are Resilient: Oscarville Tribal Climate Adaptation Plan. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Tribal Resilience Program, Oscarville, AK. https://www.nna-co.org/index.php/resource/oscarville-tribal-climate-adaptation-plan
  77. Dannenberg, A.L., H. Frumkin, J.J. Hess, and K.L. Ebi, 2019: Managed retreat as a strategy for climate change adaptation in small communities: Public health implications. Climatic Change, 153 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02382-0
  78. Knodel, M., 2014: Conceptualizing climate justice in Kivalina. Seattle University Law Review, 37 (4). https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol37/iss4/4
  79. Trombley, J., S. Chalupka, and L. Anderko, 2017: Climate change and mental health. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 117 (4), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.naj.0000515232.51795.fa
  80. Allen, J., L. Wexler, and S. Rasmus, 2022: Protective factors as a unifying framework for strength-based intervention and culturally responsive American Indian and Alaska Native suicide prevention. Prevention Science, 23 (1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01265-0
  81. Cunsolo Willox, A., E. Stephenson, J. Allen, F. Bourque, A. Drossos, S. Elgarøy, M.J. Kral, I. Mauro, J. Moses, T. Pearce, J.P. MacDonald, and L. Wexler, 2015: Examining relationships between climate change and mental health in the circumpolar North. Regional Environmental Change, 15 (1), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0630-z
  82. Hahn, M.B., G. Kuiper, K. O'Dell, E.V. Fischer, and S. Magzamen, 2021: Wildfire smoke is associated with an increased risk of cardiorespiratory emergency department visits in Alaska. GeoHealth, 5 (5), e2020GH000349. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gh000349
  83. Hahn, M.B., G. Disler, L.A. Durden, S. Coburn, F. Witmer, W. George, K. Beckmen, and R. Gerlach, 2020: Establishing a baseline for tick surveillance in Alaska: Tick collection records from 1909–2019. Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases, 11 (5), 101495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ttbdis.2020.101495
  84. Witmer, F.D.W., T.W. Nawrocki, and M. Hahn, 2022: Modeling geographic uncertainty in current and future habitat for potential populations of Ixodes pacificus (Acari: Ixodidae) in Alaska. Journal of Medical Entomology, 59 (3), 976–986. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjac001
  85. Beckmen, K., 2021: Rabies outbreak in western Alaska sparks team response. Alaska Fish and Wildlife News, June 2021. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=993
  86. Kim, B.I., J.D. Blanton, A. Gilbert, L. Castrodale, K. Hueffer, D. Slate, and C.E. Rupprecht, 2014: A conceptual model for the impact of climate change on fox rabies in Alaska, 1980–2010. Zoonoses and Public Health, 61 (1), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12044
  87. Huntington, H.P., J. Raymond-Yakoubian, G. Noongwook, N. Naylor, C. Harris, Q. Harcharek, and B. Adams, 2021: “We never get stuck:” A collaborative analysis of change and coastal community subsistence practices in the Northern Bering and Chukchi Seas, Alaska. Arctic, 74 (2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic72446
  88. Christie, K.S., T.E. Hollmen, H.P. Huntington, and J.R. Lovvorn, 2018: Structured decision analysis informed by traditional ecological knowledge as a tool to strengthen subsistence systems in a changing Arctic. Ecology and Society, 23 (4), 42. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10596-230442
  89. Hendrix, A.M., K.A. Lefebvre, L. Quakenbush, A. Bryan, R. Stimmelmayr, G. Sheffield, G. Wisswaesser, M.L. Willis, E.K. Bowers, P. Kendrick, E. Frame, T. Burbacher, and D.J. Marcinek, 2021: Ice seals as sentinels for algal toxin presence in the Pacific Arctic and subarctic marine ecosystems. Marine Mammal Science, 37 (4), 1292–1308. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12822
  90. Lefebvre, K.A., L. Quakenbush, E. Frame, K. Burek, G. Sheffield, R. Stimmelmayr, A. Bryan, P. Kendrick, H. Ziel, T. Goldstein, J.A. Snyder, T. Gelatt, F. Gulland, B. Dickerson, and V. Gill, 2016: Prevalence of algal toxins in Alaskan marine mammals foraging in a changing arctic and subarctic environment. Harmful Algae, 55, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2016.01.007
  91. Van Hemert, C., J.D. Robert, M.S. Matthew, K. Robert, S. Gay, M.D. Lauren, J.K. Kathy, K. Susan, S.L. Julia, D.R. Hardison, R.W. Litaker, J. Timothy, K.B. Hillary, and K.P. Julia, 2021: Investigation of algal toxins in a multispecies seabird die-off in the Bering and Chukchi seas. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 57 (2), 399–407. https://doi.org/10.7589/jwd-d-20-00057
  92. Van Hemert, C., S.K. Schoen, R.W. Litaker, M.M. Smith, M.L. Arimitsu, J.F. Piatt, W.C. Holland, D. Ransom Hardison, and J.M. Pearce, 2020: Algal toxins in Alaskan seabirds: Evaluating the role of saxitoxin and domoic acid in a large-scale die-off of common murres. Harmful Algae, 92, 101730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2019.101730
  93. Johnson-Agbakwu, C.E., N.S. Ali, C.M. Oxford, S. Wingo, E. Manin, and D.V. Coonrod, 2022: Racism, COVID-19, and health inequity in the USA: A call to action. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 9 (1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00928-y
  94. van Dorn, A., R.E. Cooney, and M.L. Sabin, 2020: COVID-19 exacerbating inequalities in the US. The Lancet, 395 (10232), 1243–1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30893-x
  95. Cana Uluaq Itchuaqiyaq (Author), May 13, 2022: Email communication with Gladys I’yiiqpak Pungowiyi (Iñupiaq), Kotzebue, Alaska.
  96. ADLWD, 2020: Alaska Population Overview: 2019 Estimates. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/estimates/pub/19popover.pdf
  97. Berman, M. and J.I. Schmidt, 2019: Economic effects of climate change in Alaska. Weather, Climate, and Society, 11 (2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1175/wcas-d-18-0056.1
  98. NTIA, 2020: Indicators of Broadband Need Map. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/resources/data-and-mapping
  99. Tracie Curry (Author), March 10, 2023: Telephone and email communication with Thomas Lochner, director of the Alaska broadband office, Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development.
  100. Hudson, H.E., V. Hanna, A. Hill, K. Parker, S. Sharp, K. Spiers, and K. Wark, 2021: Toward Universal Broadband in Rural Alaska: Final Report. State of Alaska, Governor's Task Force on Broadband. https://indd.adobe.com/view/42ddcfe3-5ea9-4bcb-bd09-a71bcb63869a
  101. FNSB, 2021: Geographic Information Services (GIS). Fairbanks North Star Borough. https://fnsb.gov/433/geographic-information-services-gis
  102. NRCS, 2019: Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
  103. U.S. Census Bureau, 2021: American Community Survey (ACS). U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs
  104. Hartman, I.C., 2020: Black History in the Last Frontier. Johnson, K., Ed. National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/articles/upload/black-history-in-the-last-frontier_reader_compressed.pdf
  105. ADLWD, 2021: 2021 Population Estimates by Borough, Census Area, and Economic Region. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Juneau, AK. https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/index.cfm
  106. State of Alaska, 2022: Administrative Order No. 331: Alaska Food Security and Independence Task Force. State of Alaska, Office of the Governor. https://gov.alaska.gov/admin-orders/administrative-order-no-331/
  107. Fried, N., 2019: The Cost of Living: 2018 and Early 2019. State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development. https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/trends-articles/2019/07/the-cost-of-living-in-alaska
  108. SNAP, 2022: State Activity Report: Fiscal Year 2020. Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snap-state-activity-reports
  109. Fall, J.A., 2018: Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2017 Update. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage, AK, 4 pp. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/subsistence/pdfs/subsistence_update_2017.pdf
  110. Cheng, M., M. Zhang, R.M. Van Veldhuizen, and C.W. Knight, 2021: Growing season and phenological stages of small grain crops in response to climate change in Alaska. American Journal of Climate Change, 10 (4), 490–511. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajcc.2021.104025
  111. Fresco, N., A. Bennett, P. Bieniek, and C. Rosner, 2021: Climate change, farming, and gardening in Alaska: Cultivating opportunities. Sustainability, 13 (22), 12713. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212713
  112. Lader, R., J.E. Walsh, U.S. Bhatt, and P.A. Bieniek, 2018: Agro-climate projections for a warming Alaska. Earth Interactions, 22 (18), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1175/ei-d-17-0036.1
  113. Clifford, L., 2022: North Pole man killed in head-on collision on the Richardson Highway. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, March 2, 2022. https://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/north-pole-man-killed-in-head-on-collision-on-the-richardson-highway/article_f25008e0-9a9b-11ec-bfef-6f7855147b3b.html
  114. Williams, T., 2021: Interior Alaska storm wreaks havoc as highways temporarily close and thousands remain without power. Anchorage Daily News, December 27, 2021. https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/weather/2021/12/27/interior-alaska-storm-wreaks-havoc-as-highways-temporarily-close-and-thousands-remain-without-power/
  115. Kitchenman, A., 2022: Gov. Dunleavy issues disaster declaration for Interior Alaska and Mat-Su storms. KTOO Public Media, January 3, 2022. https://www.ktoo.org/2022/01/03/dunleavy-disaster-declaration-alaska-storms/
  116. The White House, 2022: President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Approves Alaska Disaster Declaration. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/24/president-joseph-r-biden-jr-approves-alaska-disaster-declaration-4/
  117. Alyssa Quintyne (Author), May 4, 2022: Email communication with Marjorie Casort, Fairbanks, Alaska.
  118. Watson, E., 2022: I hope people talk about this storm for a long time. Anchorage Daily News, January 4, 2022. https://www.adn.com/opinions/2022/01/04/i-hope-people-talk-about-this-storm-for-a-long-time/
  119. AMAP, 2021: Arctic Climate Change Update 2021: Key Trends and Impacts. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Tromsø, Norway. https://www.amap.no/documents/download/6759/inline
  120. NASS, 2019: Census of Agriculture: 2017 State and Area Profiles—Alaska. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. https://www.nass.usda.gov/publications/agcensus/2017/online_resources/county_profiles/alaska/index.php
  121. McDowell Group, 2018: Economic Impact of Alaska’s Visitor Industry 2017. State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. https://www.mcdowellgroup.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/visitor-impacts-2016-17-report.pdf
  122. McKinley Research Group, 2022: The Economic Value of Alaska's Seafood Industry. The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. https://www.alaskaseafood.org/wp-content/uploads/MRG_ASMI-Economic-Impacts-Report_final.pdf
  123. Barbeaux, S.J., K. Holsman, and S. Zador, 2020: Marine heatwave stress test of ecosystem-based fisheries management in the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod fishery. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 703. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00703
  124. Conrad, S. and D. Gray, 2018: Overview of the 2017 Southeast Alaska and Yakutat Commercial, Personal Use, and Subsistence Salmon Fisheries. Fishery Management Report No. 18-01. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical Services, Anchorage, AK. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/fedaidpdfs/fmr18-01.pdf
  125. Garber-Yonts, B. and J. Lee, 2020: Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the King and Tanner Crab Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Area: Economic Status of the BSAI King and Tanner Crab Fisheries off Alaska, 2019. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/23002
  126. Oke, K.B., C.J. Cunningham, P.A.H. Westley, M.L. Baskett, S.M. Carlson, J. Clark, A.P. Hendry, V.A. Karatayev, N.W. Kendall, J. Kibele, H.K. Kindsvater, K.M. Kobayashi, B. Lewis, S. Munch, J.D. Reynolds, G.K. Vick, and E.P. Palkovacs, 2020: Recent declines in salmon body size impact ecosystems and fisheries. Nature Communications, 11 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17726-z
  127. NMFS, 2022: Fisheries of the United States, 2020. NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2020. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/fisheries-united-states-2020
  128. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2021: 2021 Upper Cook Inlet Commercial Salmon Fishery Season Summary. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, 15 pp. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/1346668657.pdf
  129. Barbeaux, S., K. Aydin, B. Fissel, K. Holsman, W. Palsson, K. Shotwell, Q. Yang, and S. Zador, 2017: Assessment of the Pacific cod stock in the Gulf of Alaska. In: NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 183–326. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/17515
  130. Dorn, M., K. Aydin, B. Fissel, W. Palsson, K. Spalinger, S. Stienessen, K. Williams, and S. Zador, 2018: Ch. 1. Assessment of the walleye pollock stock in the Gulf of Alaska. In: NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 130. https://apps-afsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2018/goa/goapollock.pdf
  131. Szuwalski, C., W. Cheng, R. Foy, A.J. Hermann, A. Hollowed, K. Holsman, J. Lee, W. Stockhausen, and J. Zheng, 2021: Climate change and the future productivity and distribution of crab in the Bering Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 78 (2), 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa140
  132. MacArthur, A.R., 2022: Federal disasters declared for 14 Alaska fisheries. Alaska Public Media, January 25, 2022. https://alaskapublic.org/2022/01/25/federal-disasters-declared-for-kuskokwim-and-yukon-salmon-fisheries/
  133. NCEI, 2022: Climate at a Glance: Global Mapping. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Centers for Environmental Information. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global
  134. Hunt, G.L., L. Eisner, and N.M. Call, 2021: How will diminishing sea ice impact commercial fishing in the Bering Sea? Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 53 (1), 269–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230430.2021.1974668
  135. Hurst, T.P., L.A. Copeman, S.A. Haines, S.D. Meredith, K. Daniels, and K.M. Hubbard, 2019: Elevated CO2 alters behavior, growth, and lipid composition of Pacific cod larvae. Marine Environmental Research, 145, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2019.02.004
  136. Rogers, L.A., M.T. Wilson, J.T. Duffy-Anderson, D.G. Kimmel, and J.F. Lamb, 2021: Pollock and “the blob”: Impacts of a marine heatwave on walleye pollock early life stages. Fisheries Oceanography, 30 (2), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/fog.12508
  137. Carey, M.P., V.R. von Biela, A. Dunker, K.D. Keith, M. Schelske, C. Lean, and C.E. Zimmerman, 2021: Egg retention of high-latitude sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the Pilgrim River, Alaska, during the Pacific marine heatwave of 2014–2016. Polar Biology, 44 (8), 1643–1654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-021-02902-8
  138. Shanley, C.S., S. Pyare, M.I. Goldstein, P.B. Alaback, D.M. Albert, C.M. Beier, T.J. Brinkman, R.T. Edwards, E. Hood, A. MacKinnon, M.V. McPhee, T.M. Patterson, L.H. Suring, D.A. Tallmon, and M.S. Wipfli, 2015: Climate change implications in the northern coastal temperate rainforest of North America. Climatic Change, 130 (2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1355-9
  139. von Biela, V.R., L. Bowen, S.D. McCormick, M.P. Carey, D.S. Donnelly, S. Waters, A.M. Regish, S.M. Laske, R.J. Brown, S. Larson, S. Zuray, and C.E. Zimmerman, 2020: Evidence of prevalent heat stress in Yukon River Chinook salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 77 (12), 1878–1892. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2020-0209
  140. Williams, C.R., A.H. Dittman, P. McElhany, D.S. Busch, M.T. Maher, T.K. Bammler, J.W. MacDonald, and E.P. Gallagher, 2019: Elevated CO2 impairs olfactory-mediated neural and behavioral responses and gene expression in ocean-phase coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Global Change Biology, 25 (3), 963–977. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14532
  141. Dickinson, G.H., S. Bejerano, T. Salvador, C. Makdisi, S. Patel, W.C. Long, K.M. Swiney, R.J. Foy, B.V. Steffel, K.E. Smith, and R.B. Aronson, 2021: Ocean acidification alters properties of the exoskeleton in adult Tanner crabs, Chionoecetes bairdi. Journal of Experimental Biology, 224 (3), 232819. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.232819
  142. Alabia, I.D., J. García Molinos, S.I. Saitoh, T. Hirawake, T. Hirata, and F.J. Mueter, 2018: Distribution shifts of marine taxa in the Pacific Arctic under contemporary climate changes. Diversity and Distributions, 24 (11), 1583–1597. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12788
  143. Huntington, H.P., S.L. Danielson, F.K. Wiese, M. Baker, P. Boveng, J.J. Citta, A. De Robertis, D.M.S. Dickson, E. Farley, J.C. George, K. Iken, D.G. Kimmel, K. Kuletz, C. Ladd, R. Levine, L. Quakenbush, P. Stabeno, K.M. Stafford, D. Stockwell, and C. Wilson, 2020: Evidence suggests potential transformation of the Pacific Arctic ecosystem is underway. Nature Climate Change, 10 (4), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0695-2
  144. Rogers, L.A. and A.B. Dougherty, 2019: Effects of climate and demography on reproductive phenology of a harvested marine fish population. Global Change Biology, 25 (2), 708–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14483
  145. Kovach, R.P., S.C. Ellison, S. Pyare, and D.A. Tallmon, 2015: Temporal patterns in adult salmon migration timing across southeast Alaska. Global Change Biology, 21 (5), 1821–1833. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12829
  146. Dorn, M.W., A.L. Deary, B.E. Fissel, D.T. Jones, M. Levine, A.L. McCarthy, W.A. Palsson, L.A. Rogers, S.K. Shotwell, K.A. Spalinger, K. Williams, and S.G. Zador, 2020: Ch. 1. Assessment of the walleye pollock stock in the Gulf of Alaska. In: NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 135. https://apps-afsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/refm/docs/2020/goapollock.pdf
  147. Nichol, D.G., S. Kotwicki, T.K. Wilderbuer, R.R. Lauth, and J.N. Ianelli, 2019: Availability of yellowfin sole Limanda aspera to the eastern Bering Sea trawl survey and its effect on estimates of survey biomass. Fisheries Research, 211, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2018.11.017
  148. Logerwell, E.A., M. Wang, L.L. Jörgensen, and K. Rand, 2022: Winners and losers in a warming Arctic: Potential habitat gain and loss for epibenthic invertebrates of the Chukchi and Bering Seas, 2008–2100. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 206, 105210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2022.105210
  149. Rooper, C.N., I. Ortiz, A.J. Hermann, N. Laman, W. Cheng, K. Kearney, and K. Aydin, 2021: Predicted shifts of groundfish distribution in the eastern Bering Sea under climate change, with implications for fish populations and fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 78 (1), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa215
  150. Huntington, H.P., A. Begossi, S.F. Gearheard, B. Kersey, P.A. Loring, T. Mustonen, P.K. Paudel, R.A.M. Silvano, and R. Vave, 2017: How small communities respond to environmental change: Patterns from tropical to polar ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 22 (3), 9. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-09171-220309
  151. Kasperski, S. and D.S. Holland, 2013: Income diversification and risk for fishermen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 (6), 2076–2081. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212278110
  152. Halofsky, J.E., J.S. Littell, D.L. Peterson, G.D. Hayward, and R. Gravenmier, 2019: Ch. 3. Managing effects of drought and other water resource challenges in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. In: Effects of Drought on Forests and Rangelands in the United States: Translating Science Into Management Responses. Vose, J.M., D.L. Peterson, C.H. Luce, and T. Patel-Weynand, Eds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, DC, 41–69. https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/59162
  153. Hasbrouck, T.R., T.J. Brinkman, G. Stout, E. Trochim, and K. Kielland, 2020: Quantifying effects of environmental factors on moose harvest in Interior Alaska. Wildlife Biology, 2020 (2). https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00631
  154. Green, K.M., A.H. Beaudreau, M.H. Lukin, and L.B. Crowder, 2021: Climate change stressors and social-ecological factors mediating access to subsistence resources in Arctic Alaska. Ecology and Society, 26 (4). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12783-260415
  155. Huntington, H.P., L.T. Quakenbush, and M. Nelson, 2017: Evaluating the effects of climate change on indigenous marine mammal hunting in northern and western Alaska using traditional knowledge. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00319
  156. Bieniek, P.A., U.S. Bhatt, J.E. Walsh, R. Lader, B. Griffith, J.K. Roach, and R.L. Thoman, 2018: Assessment of Alaska rain-on-snow events using dynamical downscaling. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 57 (8), 1847–1863. https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-17-0276.1
  157. Joly, K., A. Gunn, S.D. Côté, M. Panzacchi, J. Adamczewski, M.J. Suitor, and E. Gurarie, 2021: Caribou and reindeer migrations in the changing Arctic. Animal Migration, 8 (1), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1515/ami-2020-0110
  158. Mulder, C.P.H., K.V. Spellman, and J. Shaw, 2021: Berries in winter: A natural history of fruit retention in four species across Alaska. Madroño, 68 (4), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.3120/0024-9637-68.4.487
  159. Hupp, J., M. Brubaker, K. Wilkinson, and J. Williamson, 2015: How are your berries? Perspectives of Alaska's environmental managers on trends in wild berry abundance. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 74 (1), 28704. https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v74.28704
  160. Herman-Mercer, N.M., R.A. Loehman, R.C. Toohey, and C. Paniyak, 2020: Climate- and disturbance-driven changes in subsistence berries in coastal Alaska: Indigenous Knowledge to inform ecological inference. Human Ecology, 48 (1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00138-4
  161. Alaska Native Renewable Industries, 2022: Alaska Native Renewable Industries [Webpage], accessed April 3, 2023. https://anr-industries.com/
  162. Goddard, E., 2023: Solar Professionals Installation Training. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Bristol Bay Campus, accessed April 3, 2023. https://uaf.edu/bbc/academics/sustainable-energy/solarprofessionalstraining.php
  163. Alutiiq Pride Marine Institute, 2021: Welcome to the Alutiiq Pride Marine Institute [Website], accessed April 3, 2023. https://www.alutiiqprideak.org/
  164. Calypso Farm and Ecology Center, 2022: Calypso Farm & Ecology Center [Website]. https://calypsofarm.org/
  165. City of Fairbanks, 2022: Mobile Crisis Team. City of Fairbanks, Alaska. https://www.fairbanksalaska.us/crisis/page/mobile-crisis-team-call-911-access-mobile-crisis-team
  166. Ross, I., 2021: As low Chignik salmon runs continue, people worry their communities will disappear. KTOO Public Media, September 13, 2021. https://www.ktoo.org/2021/09/13/as-low-chignik-salmon-runs-continue-people-worry-their-communities-will-disappear/
  167. Fang, Z., P.T. Freeman, C.B. Field, and K.J. Mach, 2018: Reduced sea ice protection period increases storm exposure in Kivalina, Alaska. Arctic Science, 4 (4), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2017-0024
  168. Gibbs, A.E., A. Ohman. Karen, and B.M. Richmond, 2015: National Assessment of Shoreline Change: A GIS Compilation of Vector Shorelines and Associated Shoreline Change Data for the North Coast of Alaska, U.S.-Canadian Border to Icy Cape. USGS Open-File Report 2015-1030. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151030
  169. Irrgang, A.M., M. Bendixen, L.M. Farquharson, A.V. Baranskaya, L.H. Erikson, A.E. Gibbs, S.A. Ogorodov, P.P. Overduin, H. Lantuit, M.N. Grigoriev, and B.M. Jones, 2022: Drivers, dynamics and impacts of changing Arctic coasts. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 3 (1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00232-1
  170. Melvin, A.M., P. Larsen, B. Boehlert, J.E. Neumann, P. Chinowsky, X. Espinet, J. Martinich, M.S. Baumann, L. Rennels, A. Bothner, D.J. Nicolsky, and S.S. Marchenko, 2017: Climate change damages to Alaska public infrastructure and the economics of proactive adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (2), E122–E131. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611056113
  171. UAFINE, 2019: Statewide Threat Assessment: Identification of Threats from Erosion, Flooding, and Thawing Permafrost in Remote Alaska Communities. Report #INE 19.03. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Institute of Northern Engineering. https://www.denali.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Statewide-Threat-Assessment-Final-Report-20-November-2019.pdf
  172. Gorokhovich, Y. and A. Leiserowiz, 2012: Historical and future coastal changes in Northwest Alaska. Journal of Coastal Research, 28 (1A), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.2112/jcoastres-d-11-00031.1
  173. Overbeck, J.R., R.M. Buzard, M.M. Turner, K.Y. Miller, and R.J. Glenn, 2020: Shoreline Change at Alaska Coastal Communities. Report of Investigation 2020-10. Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, 29 pp. https://doi.org/10.14509/30552
  174. Jorgenson, M.T., G.V. Frost, and D. Dissing, 2018: Drivers of landscape changes in coastal ecosystems on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Remote Sensing, 10 (8), 1280. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10081280
  175. Jorgenson, T., K. Yoshikawa, M. Kanevskiy, Y. Shur, V. Romanovsky, S. Marchenko, G. Grosse, J. Brown, and B. Jones, 2008: Permafrost characteristics of Alaska. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Permafrost. Kane, D.L. and K.M. Hinkel, Eds. Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. https://permafrost.gi.alaska.edu/sites/default/files/AlaskaPermafrostMap_Back_Jun2008_Jorgenson_etal_2008.pdf
  176. Streletskiy, D.A., S. Clemens, J.-P. Lanckman, and N.I. Shiklomanov, 2023: The costs of Arctic infrastructure damages due to permafrost degradation. Environmental Research Letters, 18 (1), 015006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acab18
  177. Bull, D.L., E.M. Bristol, E. Brown, R.C. Choens, C.T. Connolly, C. Flanary, J.M. Frederick, B.M. Jones, C.A. Jones, M. Ward Jones, J.W. McClelland, A. Mota, and I.K. Tezaur, 2020: Arctic Coastal Erosion: Modeling and Experimentation. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information. https://doi.org/10.2172/1670531
  178. Buzard, R.M., M.M. Turner, K.Y. Miller, D.C. Antrobus, and J.R. Overbeck, 2021: Erosion Exposure Assessment of Infrastructure in Alaska Coastal Communities. DGGS RI 2021-3. Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, 29 pp. https://doi.org/10.14509/30672
  179. Chiskok, D., 2019: Erosion of Russian Era Graves. LEO Network. https://www.leonetwork.org/en/posts/show/db77d295-6d87-4741-9c93-d626c8a38108
  180. Seetook, D., M. Brubaker, and M. Neale, 2019: Erosion Threatening Burial Site. LEO Network. https://www.leonetwork.org/en/posts/show/0aaffcaf-13b0-4017-80b6-7e628d7ca21e
  181. BIA, 2020: The Unmet Infrastructure Needs of Tribal Communities and Alaska Native Villages in Process of Relocating to Higher Ground as a Result of Climate Change. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, NM. https://www.bia.gov/news/unmet-infrastructure-needs-tribal-communities-and-alaska-native-villages-process-relocation
  182. Schneider von Deimling, T., H. Lee, T. Ingeman-Nielsen, S. Westermann, V. Romanovsky, S. Lamoureux, D.A. Walker, S. Chadburn, E. Trochim, L. Cai, J. Nitzbon, S. Jacobi, and M. Langer, 2021: Consequences of permafrost degradation for Arctic infrastructure—Bridging the model gap between regional and engineering scales. Cryosphere, 15 (5), 2451–2471. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-2451-2021
  183. Albert, S., R. Bronen, N. Tooler, J. Leon, D. Yee, J. Ash, D. Boseto, and A. Grinham, 2018: Heading for the hills: Climate-driven community relocations in the Solomon Islands and Alaska provide insight for a 1.5 °C future. Regional Environmental Change, 18 (8), 2261–2272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1256-8
  184. BLM, 2020: Appendix I.2 ConocoPhillips road optimization memorandum. In: Willow Master Development Plan. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 9. https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/109410/570
  185. Herz, N., 2020: Big oil’s answer to melting Arctic: Cooling the ground so it can keep drilling. The Guardian, October 19, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/19/oil-alaska-arctic-global-heating-local-cooling
  186. Herz, N., 2021: At Denali National Park, climate change threatens the only road in and out. Anchorage Daily News, October 16, 2021. https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2021/10/16/at-denali-national-park-in-alaska-climate-change-threatens-the-only-road-in-and-out/
  187. NPS, 2022: Pretty Rocks Landslide. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/dena/learn/nature/pretty-rocks.htm
  188. Krakow, M., 2022: The Denali Park Road landslide made ‘shocking’ progress this winter, reinforcing the need for a fix. Anchorage Daily News, April 20, 2022. https://www.adn.com/outdoors-adventure/2022/04/20/the-denali-park-road-landslide-made-shocking-progress-this-winter-reinforcing-the-need-for-a-fix/
  189. Fullman, T.J., K. Joly, and A. Ackerman, 2017: Effects of environmental features and sport hunting on caribou migration in northwestern Alaska. Movement Ecology, 5 (1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-017-0095-z
  190. Dunmall, K.M., D.G. McNicholl, C.E. Zimmerman, S.E. Gilk-Baumer, S. Burril, and V.R. von Biela, 2022: First juvenile chum salmon confirms successful reproduction for Pacific salmon in the North American Arctic. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 79 (5), 703–707. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2022-0006
  191. Tape, K.D., D.D. Gustine, R.W. Ruess, L.G. Adams, and J.A. Clark, 2016: Range expansion of Moose in Arctic Alaska linked to warming and increased shrub habitat. PLoS ONE, 11 (4), e0152636. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152636
  192. Tape, K.D., B.M. Jones, C.D. Arp, I. Nitze, and G. Grosse, 2018: Tundra be dammed: Beaver colonization of the Arctic. Global Change Biology, 24 (10), 4478–4488. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14332
  193. Juday, G.P., C. Alix, and T.A. Grant, 2015: Spatial coherence and change of opposite white spruce temperature sensitivities on floodplains in Alaska confirms early-stage boreal biome shift. Forest Ecology and Management, 350, 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.016
  194. Cohen, J., 2019: Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) Entering Breeding Grounds Early. LEO Network. https://www.leonetwork.org/en/posts/show/eaed8cdb-8b11-4972-8ad3-6bf195ed8610
  195. Fischbach, A.S. and D.C. Douglas, 2022: Pacific Walrus Coastal Haulout Occurrences Interpreted from Satellite Imagery (ver. 2.0, December 2022), Data Release. U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.5066/p9csm0kn
  196. Ahtuangaruak, R., 2019: Dragon Flies Reach the Colville Nigliq Channel. LEO Network. https://www.leonetwork.org/en/posts/show/22ea9fc9-5540-4700-9de6-98f4f7599dca
  197. White, R., 2019: Burying Beetle (Genus Nicrophorus) in Southwest Alaska. LEO Network. https://www.leonetwork.org/en/posts/show/cf977f4d-1283-4754-b145-b214f10721b8
  198. USFS, 2020: Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 2020. R10-PR-46. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK, 76 pp. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd903361.pdf
  199. Citta, J.J., L.T. Quakenbush, S.R. Okkonen, M.L. Druckenmiller, W. Maslowski, J. Clement-kinney, J.C. George, H. Brower, R.J. Small, C.J. Ashjian, L.A. Harwood, and M.P. Heide-Jørgensen, 2015: Ecological characteristics of core-use areas used by Bering–Chukchi–Beaufort (BCB) bowhead whales, 2006–2012. Progress in Oceanography, 136, 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2014.08.012
  200. Quakenbush, L.T. and J.J. Citta, 2019: Satellite Tracking of Bowhead Whales: Habitat Use, Passive Acoustics and Environmental Monitoring. OCS Study BOEM 2019-076. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, AK. https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/BOEM_2019-076.pdf
  201. Romano, M.D., H.M. Renner, K.J. Kuletz, J.K. Parrish, T. Jones, H.K. Burgess, D.A. Cushing, and D. Causey, 2020: Die-offs, reproductive failure, and changing at-sea abundance of murres in the Bering and Chukchi Seas in 2018. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 181–182, 104877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2020.104877
  202. Wiese, F.K. and R.J. Nelson, 2022: Pathways between climate, fish, fisheries, and management: A conceptual integrated ecosystem management approach. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10 (3), 338. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10030338
  203. Ershova, E.A., J.M. Questel, K. Kosobokova, and R.R. Hopcroft, 2017: Population structure and production of four sibling species of Pseudocalanus spp. in the Chukchi Sea. Journal of Plankton Research, 39 (1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbw078
  204. Mordy, C.W., K. Axler, L. Copeman, A. Deary, J.T. Duffy-Anderson, L. Eisner, E. Goldstein, H. Tabisola, J.W. Krause, D. Kimmel, C. Ladd, M.W. Lomas, R.M. McCabe, J.M. Nielsen, A. Schnetzer, A. Spear, and P. Stabeno, 2022: Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Research Program Final Report for Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Survey (IES) Phase II: Oceanography and Lower Trophic Level Productivity (A92) and Microzooplankton Biomass and Grazing Rates on the Arctic Program Cruises (A70). North Pacific Research Board, Arctic Program. https://nprb-public-website.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/arctic-program/A92_Arctic+IES+Oceanography+%26+Lower+Trophic+Levels.pdf
  205. Copeman, L.A., C.D. Salant, M.A. Stowell, M.L. Spencer, D.G. Kimmel, A.I. Pinchuk, and B.J. Laurel, 2022: Annual and spatial variation in the condition and lipid storage of juvenile Chukchi Sea gadids during a recent period of environmental warming (2012 to 2019). Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 205, 105180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2022.105180
  206. Boveng, P.L., H.L. Ziel, B.T. McClintock, and M.F. Cameron, 2020: Body condition of phocid seals during a period of rapid environmental change in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 181-182, 104904–104904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2020.104904
  207. Pagano, A.M., G.M. Durner, T.C. Atwood, and D.C. Douglas, 2021: Effects of sea ice decline and summer land use on polar bear home range size in the Beaufort Sea. Ecosphere, 12 (10), 03768. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3768
  208. Taylor, P.C., W. Maslowski, J. Perlwitz, and D.J. Wuebbles, 2017: Ch. 11. Arctic changes and their effects on Alaska and the rest of the United States. In: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I. Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 303-332. https://doi.org/10.7930/j00863gk
  209. Ardyna, M. and K.R. Arrigo, 2020: Phytoplankton dynamics in a changing Arctic Ocean. Nature Climate Change, 10 (10), 892–903. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0905-y
  210. Bednaršek, N., K.A. Naish, R.A. Feely, C. Hauri, K. Kimoto, A.J. Hermann, C. Michel, A. Niemi, and D. Pilcher, 2021: Integrated assessment of ocean acidification risks to pteropods in the northern high latitudes: Regional comparison of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 671497. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.671497
  211. Hurst, T.P., B.J. Laurel, E. Hanneman, S.A. Haines, and M.L. Ottmar, 2017: Elevated CO2 does not exacerbate nutritional stress in larvae of a Pacific flatfish. Fisheries Oceanography, 26 (3), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/fog.12195
  212. Hurst, T.P., B.J. Laurel, J.T. Mathis, and L.R. Tobosa, 2016: Effects of elevated CO2 levels on eggs and larvae of a North Pacific flatfish. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73 (3), 981–990. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv050
  213. Hurst, T.P., L.A. Copeman, J.F. Andrade, M.A. Stowell, C.E. Al-Samarrie, J.L. Sanders, and M.L. Kent, 2021: Expanding evaluation of ocean acidification responses in a marine gadid: Elevated CO2 impacts development, but not size of larval walleye pollock. Marine Biology, 168 (8), 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-021-03924-w
  214. Hurst, T.P., E.R. Fernandez, and J.T. Mathis, 2013: Effects of ocean acidification on hatch size and larval growth of walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70 (4), 812–822. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst053
  215. Hurst, T.P., E.R. Fernandez, J.T. Mathis, J.A. Miller, C.M. Stinson, and E.F. Ahgeak, 2012: Resiliency of juvenile walleye pollock to projected levels of ocean acidification. Aquatic Biology, 17 (3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00483
  216. Ou, M., T.J. Hamilton, J. Eom, E.M. Lyall, J. Gallup, A. Jiang, J. Lee, D.A. Close, S.-S. Yun, and C.J. Brauner, 2015: Responses of pink salmon to CO2-induced aquatic acidification. Nature Climate Change, 5 (10), 950–955. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2694
  217. Long, W.C., S.B. Van Sant, K.M. Swiney, R.J. Foy, W.C. Long, V. Sant, S.B. Swiney, and K.M. Foy, 2017: Survival, growth, and morphology of blue king crabs: Effect of ocean acidification decreases with exposure time. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74 (4), 1033–1041. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw197
  218. Long, W.C., K.M. Swiney, and R.J. Foy, 2013: Effects of ocean acidification on the embryos and larvae of red king crab, Paralithodes camtschaticus. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 69 (1-2), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.01.011
  219. Long, W.C., K.M. Swiney, C. Harris, H.N. Page, and R.J. Foy, 2013: Effects of ocean acidification on juvenile red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) and Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi) growth, condition, calcification, and survival. PLoS ONE, 8 (4), e60959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060959
  220. Meseck, S.L., J.H. Alix, K.M. Swiney, W.C. Long, G.H. Wikfors, and R.J. Foy, 2016: Ocean acidification affects hemocyte physiology in the tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi). PLoS ONE, 11 (2), 0148477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148477
  221. Swiney, K.M., W.C. Long, and R.J. Foy, 2016: Effects of high pCO2 on Tanner crab reproduction and early life history—Part I: Long-term exposure reduces hatching success and female calcification, and alters embryonic development. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73 (3), 825–835. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv201
  222. Tai, T.C., U.R. Sumaila, and W.W.L. Cheung, 2021: Ocean acidification amplifies multi-stressor impacts on global marine invertebrate fisheries. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 596644. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.596644
  223. Hoffman II, H., 2021: Strange Plant Found Below Oskawalik on the Kuskokwim River. LEO Network. https://www.leonetwork.org/en/posts/show/d54b385c-ae44-45a7-82a4-550ced699500
  224. Frost, G.V., M.J. Macander, U.S. Bhatt, L.T. Berner, J.W. Bjerke, H.E. Epstein, B.C. Forbes, S.J. Goetz, M.J. Lara, T. Park, G.K. Phoenix, S.P. Serbin, H. Tømmervik, D.A. Walker, and D. Yang, 2021: Arctic Report Card 2021: Tundra Greenness. NOAA Technical Report OAR ARC; 21-08. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, 8 pp. https://doi.org/10.25923/8n78-wp73
  225. Hard, J.S., 1976: Natural control of hemlock sawfly, Neodiprion tsugae (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae), populations in Southeast Alaska. The Canadian Entomologist, 108 (5), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.4039/ent108485-5
  226. Mann, D.H., T.S. Rupp, M.A. Olson, and P.A. Duffy, 2012: Is Alaska’s boreal forest now crossing a major ecological threshold? Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 44 (3), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1657/1938-4246-44.3.319
  227. Thoman, R., 2022: Alaska on fire: Thousands of lightning strikes and a warming climate put Alaska on pace for another historic fire season. The Conversation, July 6, 2022. https://theconversation.com/alaska-on-fire-thousands-of-lightning-strikes-and-a-warming-climate-put-alaska-on-pace-for-another-historic-fire-season-186453
  228. Scholten, R.C., R. Jandt, E.A. Miller, B.M. Rogers, and S. Veraverbeke, 2021: Overwintering fires in boreal forests. Nature, 593 (7859), 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03437-y
  229. Chen, Y., M.J. Lara, B.M. Jones, G.V. Frost, and F.S. Hu, 2021: Thermokarst acceleration in Arctic tundra driven by climate change and fire disturbance. One Earth, 4 (12), 1718–1729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.11.011
  230. Lara, M.J., H. Genet, A.D. McGuire, E.S. Euskirchen, Y. Zhang, D.R.N. Brown, M.T. Jorgenson, V. Romanovsky, A. Breen, and W.R. Bolton, 2016: Thermokarst rates intensify due to climate change and forest fragmentation in an Alaskan boreal forest lowland. Global Change Biology, 22 (2), 816–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13124
  231. Lara, M.J., Y. Chen, and B.M. Jones, 2021: Recent warming reverses forty-year decline in catastrophic lake drainage and hastens gradual lake drainage across northern Alaska. Environmental Research Letters, 16 (12). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3602
  232. Lindgren, P.R., L.M. Farquharson, V.E. Romanovsky, and G. Grosse, 2021: Landsat-based lake distribution and changes in western Alaska permafrost regions between the 1970s and 2010s. Environmental Research Letters, 16 (2). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd270
  233. Nitze, I., S. W. Cooley, C. R. Duguay, B. M. Jones, and G. Grosse, 2020: The catastrophic thermokarst lake drainage events of 2018 in northwestern Alaska: Fast-forward into the future. Cryosphere, 14 (12), 4279–4297. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4279-2020
  234. Webb, E.E., A.K. Liljedahl, J.A. Cordeiro, M.M. Loranty, C. Witharana, and J.W. Lichstein, 2022: Permafrost thaw drives surface water decline across lake-rich regions of the Arctic. Nature Climate Change, 12 (9), 841–846. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01455-w
  235. Chipman, M.L. and F.S. Hu, 2017: Linkages among climate, fire, and Thermoerosion in Alaskan tundra over the past three millennia. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 122 (12), 3362–3377. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jg004027
  236. Rey, D.M., M.A. Walvoord, B.J. Minsley, B.A. Ebel, C.I. Voss, and K. Singha, 2020: Wildfire-initiated talik development exceeds current thaw projections: Observations and models from Alaska’s continuous permafrost zone. Geophysical Research Letters, 47 (15). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl087565
  237. Mekonnen, Z.A., W.J. Riley, R.F. Grant, and V.E. Romanovsky, 2021: Changes in precipitation and air temperature contribute comparably to permafrost degradation in a warmer climate. Environmental Research Letters, 16 (2). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc444
  238. Jones, B.M., G. Grosse, L.M. Farquharson, P. Roy-Léveillée, A. Veremeeva, M.Z. Kanevskiy, B.V. Gaglioti, A.L. Breen, A.D. Parsekian, M. Ulrich, and K.M. Hinkel, 2022: Lake and drained lake basin systems in lowland permafrost regions. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 3 (1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00238-9
  239. McGuire, A.D., H. Genet, Z. Lyu, N. Pastick, S. Stackpoole, R. Birdsey, D. D'Amore, Y. He, T.S. Rupp, R. Striegl, B.K. Wylie, X. Zhou, Q. Zhuang, and Z. Zhu, 2018: Assessing historical and projected carbon balance of Alaska: A synthesis of results and policy/management implications. Ecological Applications, 28 (6), 1396–1412. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1768
  240. Miner, K.R., M.R. Turetsky, E. Malina, A. Bartsch, J. Tamminen, A.D. McGuire, A. Fix, C. Sweeney, C.D. Elder, and C.E. Miller, 2022: Permafrost carbon emissions in a changing Arctic. Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, 3 (1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00230-3
  241. Schuur, E.A.G., R. Bracho, G. Celis, E.F. Belshe, C. Ebert, J. Ledman, M. Mauritz, E.F. Pegoraro, C. Plaza, H. Rodenhizer, V. Romanovsky, C. Schädel, D. Schirokauer, M. Taylor, J.G. Vogel, and E.E. Webb, 2021: Tundra underlain by thawing permafrost persistently emits carbon to the atmosphere over 15 years of measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 126 (6), e2020JG006044. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jg006044
  242. Arimitsu, M.L., J.F. Piatt, S. Hatch, R.M. Suryan, S. Batten, M.A. Bishop, R.W. Campbell, H. Coletti, D. Cushing, K. Gorman, R.R. Hopcroft, K.J. Kuletz, C. Marsteller, C. McKinstry, D. McGowan, J. Moran, S. Pegau, A. Schaefer, S. Schoen, J. Straley, and V.R. von Biela, 2021: Heatwave-induced synchrony within forage fish portfolio disrupts energy flow to top pelagic predators. Global Change Biology, 27 (9), 1859–1878. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15556
  243. Jones, L.A., E.R. Schoen, R. Shaftel, C.J. Cunningham, S. Mauger, D.J. Rinella, and A. St. Saviour, 2020: Watershed-scale climate influences productivity of Chinook salmon populations across southcentral Alaska. Global Change Biology, 26 (9), 4919–4936. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15155
  244. Armstrong, J.B., E.J. Ward, D.E. Schindler, and P.J. Lisi, 2016: Adaptive capacity at the northern front: Sockeye salmon behaviourally thermoregulate during novel exposure to warm temperatures. Conservation Physiology, 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/cow039
  245. Pitman, K.J., J.W. Moore, M. Huss, M.R. Sloat, D.C. Whited, T.J. Beechie, R. Brenner, E.W. Hood, A.M. Milner, G.R. Pess, G.H. Reeves, and D.E. Schindler, 2021: Glacier retreat creating new Pacific salmon habitat in western North America. Nature Communications, 12 (1), 6816. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26897-2
  246. Carey, M.P., V.R. von Biela, R.J. Brown, and C.E. Zimmerman, 2021: Migration strategies supporting salmonids in Arctic Rivers: A case study of Arctic Cisco and Dolly Varden. Animal Migration, 8 (1), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1515/ami-2020-0115
  247. DOD, 2021: Department of Defense Climate Risk Analysis. Report Submitted to National Security Council. U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary for Policy, 18 pp. https://media.defense.gov/2021/oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/dod-climate-risk-analysis-final.pdf
  248. DOD, 2019: Report to Congress on Military Structure in Permafrost Areas. U.S. Department of Defense, Office of The Under Secretary of Defense. https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/downloads/fim/2019%20report%20to%20congress%20on%20military%20structures%20in%20permafrost%20areas.pdf
  249. Hjort, J., O. Karjalainen, J. Aalto, S. Westermann, V.E. Romanovsky, F.E. Nelson, B. Etzelmüller, and M. Luoto, 2018: Degrading permafrost puts Arctic infrastructure at risk by mid-century. Nature Communications, 9 (1), 5147. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07557-4
  250. BLM AFS, 2022: Prescribed Burn Operations Planned on Military Training Lands in the Fairbanks North Star Borough to Reduce Wildfire Threat. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Managment, Alaska Fire Service, Fairbanks, AK. https://akfireinfo.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/afs_fwa-yta_2022newrelease.pdf
  251. CMTS, 2019: A Ten-Year Projection of Maritime Activity in the U.S. Arctic Region, 2020–2030. U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System, Washington, DC, 118 pp. https://www.cmts.gov/assets/uploads/documents/cmts_2019_arctic_vessel_projection_report.pdf
  252. Boulègue, M., 2019: Russia's Military Posture in the Arctic. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/06/russias-military-posture-arctic
  253. Pezard, S., S.J. Flanagan, S.W. Harold, I.A. Chindea, B.J. Sacks, A. Tingstad, T. Finazzo, and S. Kim, 2022: China's Strategy and Activities in the Arctic: Implications for North American and Transatlantic Security. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. https://doi.org/10.7249/rra1282-1-v2
  254. NOAA Marine Debris Program, 2021: Bering Strait Marine Debris Event Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Marine Debris Program, Silver Spring, MD. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/emergency-response/bering-strait-marine-debris-event-report
  255. DHS, 2019: Strategic Approach for Arctic Homeland Security. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, 25 pp. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/21_0113_plcy_dhs-arctic-strategy_0.pdf
  256. USAF, 2020: The Department of the Air Force Arctic Strategy. U.S. Air Force. https://www.af.mil/portals/1/documents/2020saf/july/arcticstrategy.pdf
  257. Hudson, A., 2022: Eielson days away from achieving full complement of F-35s. Air & Space Forces Magazine. https://www.airforcemag.com/eielson-days-away-from-achieving-full-complement-of-f-35s/
  258. Bennett, M.M., S.R. Stephenson, K. Yang, M.T. Bravo, and B. De Jonghe, 2020: The opening of the Transpolar Sea Route: Logistical, geopolitical, environmental, and socioeconomic impacts. Marine Policy, 121, 104178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104178
  259. Henry Huntington (Chapter Lead), October 19, 2022: Email communication with Jacqueline Christensen, Native Village of Port Heiden (Alaska).
  260. Henry Huntington (Chapter Lead), August 29, 2022: Email communication with Theo Garcia, Knik Tribal Council (Alaska).
  261. Canosa, I.V., J.D. Ford, G. McDowell, J. Jones, and T. Pearce, 2020: Progress in climate change adaptation in the Arctic. Environmental Research Letters, 15 (9), 093009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9be1
  262. Adapt Alaska, 2022: Adapt Alaska: Resources. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. https://adaptalaska.org/resources/
  263. Hahn, M.B., C. Kemp, C. Ward-Waller, S. Donovan, J.I. Schmidt, and S. Bauer, 2020: Collaborative climate mitigation and adaptation planning with university, community, and municipal partners: A case study in Anchorage, Alaska. Local Environment, 25 (9), 648–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2020.1811655
  264. Steffen, A., S.A. Greenlaw, M. Biermann, and A.L. Lovecraft, 2021: Alaska’s Climate Change Policy Development. University of Alaska, Center for Arctic Policy Studies, Fairbanks, AK, 59 pp. https://www.uaf.edu/caps/our-work/CAPS-alaskas-climate-policy-development-March2021-corrected.pdf
  265. Birchall, J.S. and N. Bonnett, 2020: Thinning sea ice and thawing permafrost: Climate change adaptation planning in Nome, Alaska. Environmental Hazards, 19 (2), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2019.1637331
  266. Birchall, S.J. and N. Bonnett, 2019: Local-scale climate change stressors and policy response: The case of Homer, Alaska. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62 (13), 2238–2254. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1537975
  267. Bronen, R., D. Pollock, J. Overbeck, D. Stevens, S. Natali, and C. Maio, 2020: Usteq: Integrating indigenous knowledge and social and physical sciences to coproduce knowledge and support community-based adaptation. Polar Geography, 43 (2-3), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937x.2019.1679271
  268. DCRA, n.d.: Community Resilience and Climate Adaptation Programs. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, Division of Community and Regional Affairs. https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/CommunityResilienceandClimateAdaptationPrograms.aspx
  269. AMAP, 2017: Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic: Perspectives From the Beringchukchi-Beaufort Region. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway. https://www.amap.no/documents/download/2993
  270. ICC Alaska, 2020: Food Sovereignty and Self-Governance: Inuit Role in Managing Arctic Marine Resources. Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska, Anchorage, AK. https://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/project/food-sovereignty-and-self-governance-inuit-role-in-managing-arctic-marine-resources/
  271. Loring, P.A., S.C. Gerlach, and H.J. Penn, 2016: “Community work” in a climate of adaptation: Responding to change in rural Alaska. Human Ecology, 44 (1), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-015-9800-y
  272. BIA, n.d.: Tribal Climate Resilience Program Awards. Bureau of Indian Affairs. https://biamaps.doi.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=19ad66da24704639b09ae64a81154eb4
  273. ANTHC, 2023: Assessment Reports Archive. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. https://www.anthc.org/what-we-do/community-environment-and-health/center-for-climate-and-health/climate-health-3/
  274. Chase, M., K. Heeringa, J. Littell, R. Toohey, and M. Tankersley, 2020: Looking Forward, Looking Back: Building Resilience Today: Training Two Report. Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Fairbanks, AK, 26 pp. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70243265
  275. Beck, C.A., H.L. Stewart, and I. Dutton, 2019: Adapt Y-K Delta: Climate Adaptation Strategies for the Yukon-Kuskokwim (Y-K) Delta Region. Adapt Y-K Delta Steering Committee, Anchorage, AK. https://adaptalaska.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ADAPT-YK_Strategies_FINAL_sm.pdf
  276. CCTHITA, 2019: Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. http://www.ccthita.org/services/community/environmental/documents/t%26hclimatechangeadaptationplan.pdf
  277. Blair, B. and G.P. Kofinas, 2020: Cross-scale risk perception: Differences between tribal leaders and resource managers in Arctic Alaska. Ecology and Society, 25 (4). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-11776-250409
  278. Ellam Yua, J. Raymond-Yakoubian, R. Aluaq Daniel, and C. Behe, 2022: A framework for co-production of knowledge in the context of Arctic research. Ecology and Society, 27 (1), 34. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12960-270134
  279. Carlo, N., 2020: Arctic Observing: Indigenous Peoples’ History, Perspectives, and Approaches for Partnership. University of Alaska, Center for Arctic Policy Studies, Fairbanks, AK. https://www.uaf.edu/caps/our-work/Carlo_Arctic-Observing_Indigenous-Peoples-History_CAPS_5MAR2020.pdf
  280. ANKN, 2006: Alaska Native Values for the Curriculum. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Native Knowledge Network. http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/ancr/values/
  281. Berman, M., J. Baztan, G. Kofinas, J.P. Vanderlinden, O. Chouinard, J.M. Huctin, A. Kane, C. Mazé, I. Nikulkina, and K. Thomson, 2020: Adaptation to climate change in coastal communities: Findings from seven sites on four continents. Climatic Change, 159 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02571-x
  282. CCTHITA, n.d.: Southeast Traditional Tribal Values. Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. http://www.ccthita.org/about/values/index.html
  283. Curry, T., C. Meek, and M. Berman, 2021: Informal institutions and adaptation: Patterns and pathways of influence in a remote Arctic community. Local Environment, 26 (9), 1070–1091. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1962828
  284. Fauchald, P., V.H. Hausner, J.I. Schmidt, and D.A. Clark, 2017: Transitions of social-ecological subsistence systems in the Arctic. International Journal of the Commons, 11 (1), 275–329. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.698/metrics/
  285. Figus, E., B.K.Y. Jackson, and S.F. Trainor, 2022: The Kake Climate Partnership: Implementing a knowledge co-production framework to provide climate services in Southeast Alaska. Frontiers in Climate, 4, 885494. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.885494
  286. GAO, 2022: Alaska Native Issues: Federal Agencies Could Enhance Support for Native Village Efforts to Address Environmental Threats. GAO-22-104241. U.S. Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104241.pdf
  287. Ristroph, E.B., 2022: How Alaska Native corporations can better support Alaska Native villages. American Indian Law Journal, 10 (1), 5. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/ailj/vol10/iss1/5
  288. Adaptation Advisory Group, 2010: Alaska’s Climate Change Strategy: Addressing Impacts in Alaska. Georgetown Climate Center. https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/alaska-s-climate-change-strategy-addressing-impacts-in-alaska.html
  289. Nakashima, D.J., K. Galloway McLean, H.D. Thulstrup, A. Ramos Castillo, and J.T. Rubis, 2012: Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. UNESCO, Paris and Darwin, UNU, 120 pp. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216613
  290. Naylor, A., J. Ford, T. Pearce, and J. Van Alstine, 2020: Conceptualizing climate vulnerability in complex adaptive systems. One Earth, 2 (5), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.04.011
  291. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Pub. L. No. 92–203, 85 Stat. 688, December 18, 1971. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title43/chapter33&edition=prelim
  292. Ristroph, E.B., 2021: Navigating climate change adaptation assistance for communities: A case study of Newtok Village, Alaska. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 11 (3), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00711-3
  293. Ristroph, E., 2019: Fulfilling climate justice and government obligations to Alaska Native villages: What is the government role? William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 43 (2). https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol43/iss2/4
  294. The Alaska Center, 2017: Solarize Your Community [Website], accessed April 4, 2023. https://akcenter.org/climate-clean-energy/solarize/
  295. Solarize the Kenai, 2021: Solarize the Kenai [Website], accessed April 4, 2023. https://www.solarizethekenai.org/
  296. Alaska Heat Smart, n.d.: Thermalize Juneau [Webpage], accessed April 3, 2023. https://akheatsmart.org/programs/thermalize-juneau/
  297. AEL&P, 2016: Alternative Energy. Alaska Electric Light and Power, Juneau, AK, accessed April 4, 2023. https://www.aelp.com/energy-conservation/alternative-energy
  298. Chugach Electric Association, 2023: Energy Solutions: Net Metering and Buyback Generation [Webpage], accessed April 4, 2023. https://www.chugachelectric.com/energy-solutions/net-metering-and-buyback-generation
  299. GVEA, 2018: GVEA’s Solar Farm. Golden Valley Electric Association, accessed April 3, 2023. https://www.gvea.com/services/energy/sources-of-power/gveas-solar-farm/
  300. Juneau Electric Vehicle Association, n.d.: Juneau EV [Website], accessed April 3, 2023. https://juneauev.org/
  301. BuyAlaska, 2023: Community Supported Agriculture [Website], accessed April 5, 2023. https://buyalaska.com/csa/
  302. Naiden, A., 2021: Donated salmon gets shipped to communities on the Yukon. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, August 6, 2021. https://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/donated-salmon-gets-shipped-to-communities-on-the-yukon/article_52d45244-f622-11eb-9bd2-7f6bc3fca171.html
  303. Bonnett, N. and S.J. Birchall, 2020: Coastal communities in the Circumpolar North and the need for sustainable climate adaptation approaches. Marine Policy, 121, 104175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104175
  304. Ford, J.D., T. Pearce, I.V. Canosa, and S. Harper, 2021: The rapidly changing Arctic and its societal implications. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12 (6), e735–e735. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.735
  305. Huntington, H.P., M. Carey, C. Apok, B.C. Forbes, S. Fox, L.K. Holm, A. Ivanova, J. Jaypoody, G. Noongwook, and F. Stammler, 2019: Climate change in context: Putting people first in the Arctic. Regional Environmental Change, 19 (4), 1217–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01478-8
  306. Adger, W.N., J.M. Pulhin, J. Barnett, G.D. Dabelko, G.K. Hovelsrud, M. Levy, S. Ú. Oswald, and C.H. Vogel, 2014: Ch. 12. Human security. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 755-791. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/human-security/
  307. David-Chavez, D.M. and M.C. Gavin, 2018: A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental Research Letters, 13 (12), 123005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf300
  308. Roy, J., P. Tschakert, H. Waisman, S. Abdul Halim, P. Antwi-Agyei, P. Dasgupta, B. Hayward, M. Kanninen, D. Liverman, C. Okereke, P.F. Pinho, K. Riahi, and A.G. Suarez Rodriguez, 2018: Ch. 5. Sustainable development, poverty eradication and reducing inequalities. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. an IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts To Eradicate Poverty. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 445–538. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.007
  309. Morales, K., C. Avery, M. Chase, K. Cozzetto, P. Ezcurra, P. Hardison, A. Herrmann, H. Mullen, and K. Whyte, 2021: Ch. 12. Emerging topics. In: Status of Tribes and Climate Change Report. Marks-Marino, D., Ed. Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals, 277–295. http://nau.edu/stacc2021
  310. The White House, 2022: White House Releases First-of-a-Kind Indigenous Knowledge Guidance for Federal Agencies. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/news-updates/2022/12/01/white-house-releases-first-of-a-kind-indigenous-knowledge-guidance-for-federal-agencies/
  311. Sparrow, E., C. Keill, C. Breest, T. Clucas, and T. Moran, 2017: Innovative experiences in STEM education. In: INTED2017 Proceedings: 11th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Chova, L.G., A.L. Martínez, and I.C. Torres, Eds. Valencia, Spain, 6–8 March 2017, 7619–7628. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2017
  312. Sparrow, E.B. and S. Yule, 2010: Seasons and biomes and the GLOBE Program: Monitoring seasons through global learning communities. In: Polar Science and Global Climate: An International Resource for Education & Outreach, Kaiser, B., Ed. London, UK. Pearson, 152–153. https://polareducator.org/resources/prb-2/
  313. Yoshikawa, K., E. Sparrow, and J. Stanilovskaya, 2014: Engaging Alaska communities and students in cryospheric research. In: Geoscience Research and Outreach: Schools and Public Engagement. Tong, V.C.H., Ed. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6943-4_3
  314. Gazal, R., M.A. White, R. Gillies, E. Rodemaker, E. Sparrow, and L. Gordon, 2008: GLOBE students, teachers, and scientists demonstrate variable differences between urban and rural leaf phenology. Global Change Biology, 14 (7), 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01602.x
  315. Robin, J., R. Dubayah, E. Sparrow, and E. Levine, 2008: Monitoring start of season in Alaska with GLOBE, AVHRR, and MODIS data. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 113 (G1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jg000407
  316. Spellman, K.V., E.B. Sparrow, M.J. Chase, A. Larson, and K. Kealy, 2018: Connected climate change learning through citizen science: An assessment of priorities and needs of formal and informal educators and community members in Alaska. Connected Science Learning, 1 (6). https://www.nsta.org/connected-science-learning/connected-science-learning-april-june-2018-0/connected-climate-change
  317. Hauser, D.D.W., R.T. Glenn, E.D. Lindley, K.K. Pikok, K. Heeringa, J. Jones, B. Adams, J.M. Leavitt, G.N. Omnik, R. Schaeffer, C. SimsKayotuk, E.B. Sparrow, A.M. Ravelo, O. Lee, and H. Eicken, 2023: Nunaaqqit Savaqatigivlugich—Working with communities: Evolving collaborations around an Alaska Arctic observatory and knowledge hub. Arctic Science, 9 (3), 635–656. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2022-0044
  318. Chase, M., F. Olin IV, and H. Stewart., 2021: Adaptation Planning Pathways Coordinated Pathways. Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association and Agnew, Anchorage, AK. [Print].
  319. Willow Hetrick (Technical Contributor), December 16, 2020: Oral communication with Dune Lankard (Eyak Athabascan), Copper River Delta, Alaska.
  320. Fedewa, E.J., T.M. Jackson, J.I. Richar, J.L. Gardner, and M.A. Litzow, 2020: Recent shifts in northern Bering Sea snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) size structure and the potential role of climate-mediated range contraction. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 181–182, 104878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2020.104878
  321. Ford, J.D., G. McDowell, and T. Pearce, 2015: The adaptation challenge in the Arctic. Nature Climate Change, 5 (12), 1046–1053. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2723
  322. Solving the Climate Crisis: Key Accomplishments, Additional Opportunities, and the Need for Continued Action, House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, 2022: 117 Congress. https://www.congress.gov/event/117th-congress/house-event/115211?s=1&r=70
  323. The White House, 2021: Executive Order on Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/12/08/executive-order-on-catalyzing-clean-energy-industries-and-jobs-through-federal-sustainability/
  324. LaFrance, J. and R. Nichols, 2008: Reframing evaluation: Defining an Indigenous evaluation framework. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 23 (2), 13–31. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-10284-001

Previous Chapter
View All Figures
Next Chapter

Likelihood

Virtually Certain Very Likely Likely As Likely as Not Unlikely Very Unikely Exceptionally Unlikely
99%–100% 90%–100% 66%–100% 33%–66% 0%–33% 0%–10% 0%–1%

Confidence Level

Very High High Medium Low
  • Strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, well-documented and accepted methods, etc.)
  • High consensus
  • Moderate evidence (several sources, some consistency, methods vary and/or documentation limited, etc.)
  • Medium consensus
  • Suggestive evidence (a few sources, limited consistency, methods emerging, etc.)
  • Competing schools of thought
  • Inconclusive evidence (limited sources, extrapolations, inconsistent findings, poor documentation and/or methods not tested, etc.)
  • Disagreement or lack of opinions among experts

GlobalChange.gov is made possible by our participating agencies

Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Services Department of Homeland Security Department of Interior Department of State Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency NASA National Science Foundation Smithsonian Institute Agency for International Development
  • About USGCRP
  • FOIA requests
  • No FEAR Act
  • Accessibility
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright
  • Contact Us
  • Site Map
Looking for U.S. government information and services?
Visit USA.gov