ASSEMBLY BOROUGH MAYOR Scott Crass, Presiding Officer Grier Hopkins Liz Reeves, Deputy Presiding Officer David Guttenberg Brett Rotermund BOROUGH ATTORNEY Garrett Armstrong Jill S. Dolan Nick LaJiness Tammie Wilson Kristan Kelly BOROUGH CLERK Patrick Roach April Trickey, MMC FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH Regular Assembly Meeting Agenda August 27, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. Mona Lisa Drexler Assembly Chambers Juanita Helms Administration Center 907 Terminal Street, Fairbanks, AK 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. NONSECTARIAN INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. ROLL CALL 5. REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND ANY OTHER PROCEDURAL MOTIONS 6. CITIZENS' COMMENTS - Each person's comments limited to 3 minutes (Citizens' Comments shall recess at 6:50 p.m. for public hearing) 6.a. A citizen may speak on agenda items not scheduled for public hearing (Memorandums, Bid Awards, Unfinished Business {items postponed from previous meetings, reconsideration, or notice of intent to rescind}, Resolutions, or Ordinances being advanced to a public hearing on a different date). Citizens' comments on Board of Adjustment matters are not permitted. 6.b. Items that are not scheduled on the agenda. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Approval of the consent agenda passes all routine items indicated by an asterisk (*) on the agenda. Consent agenda items are not considered separately unless an Assemblymember so requests. Note: If the consent item to be removed is an ordinance up to be introduced, advanced, or referred, it takes two Assemblymembers to remove the item from the consent agenda. In the event of such a request, the item is returned to the general agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.a. *Regular Assembly Meeting minutes of August 13, 2026. 9. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE ASSEMBLY THE AGENDA ITEMS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE DELETION OF ITEMS OR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, IF NEEDED. Page 1 of 1055Fairbanks North Star Borough August 27, 2026 Regular Assembly Meeting 9.a. *Memorandum from Mayor Hopkins recommending the appointment of various Service Area Commissioners. 10. MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR 11. REPORTS OF STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES 12. REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES 12.a. Report from the City of Fairbanks Representative 12.b. Report from the City of North Pole Representative 12.c. Report from the School Board Representative 13. SPECIAL ORDERS - Public Hearing at or after 7:00 p.m. (each person's comments limited to 3 minutes) 13.a. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-25. A Resolution Identifying And Supporting Legislative Priorities. (Sponsor: Assembly Committee of the Whole) 13.b. ORDINANCE NO. 2026-21. An Ordinance Authorizing The Mayor To Enter Into A Lease Agreement With Interior Alaska American Legion Post 99 At Less Than Fair Rental Value For Operation Of An American Legion Post On A Two Acre Portion Of Tract E Of Grieme Farm Subdivision (Located At Grieme Road And Richardson Highway At Approximately Milepost 331.5). (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) 14. CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR - Unfinished Business None 15. CITIZENS' COMMENTS ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING - continuation (each person's comments limited to 3 minutes) 16. CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR - New Business - Resolutions 16.a. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-24. A Resolution Adopting The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan As The Official Hazard Mitigation Plan Of The Borough. (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) 17. CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR - New Business - Ordinances to be Referred to Committees or Commissions 17.a. *ORDINANCE NO. 2026-22. Amending FNSBC Title 15, Buildings And Construction, To Update Floodplain Management Regulations And Adopt Revised Flood Insurance Maps And Flood Insurance Study In Order To Comply With The National Flood Insurance Program. (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) (Refer to the Planning Commission on September 8, 2026, with a recommendation due back by September 25, 2026) THE AGENDA ITEMS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE DELETION OF ITEMS OR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, IF NEEDED. Page 2 of 1055Fairbanks North Star Borough August 27, 2026 Regular Assembly Meeting 18. CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR - New Business - Ordinances to be Introduced and Advanced to Public Hearing 18.a. *ORDINANCE NO. 2026-13. An Ordinance Rezoning Tract B Of Contentment Estates And A Portion Of Tract A Of Graceland Subdivision From Rural Estates (RE-2) To Outdoor Recreational (OR) Or Other Appropriate Zone; And Rezoning Tract B And A Portion Of Tract A Of Graceland Subdivision From Rural And Agricultural (RA-20) To Outdoor Recreational (OR) Or Other Appropriate Zone (Located North Of Isberg Rd And East Of Cripple Creek Rd). (RZ2026-006) (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) (Refer to the Committee of the Whole on September 3, 2026; Advance to September 10, 2026 for Public Hearing) 18.b. *ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1I. An Ordinance Amending The FY 2026-27 Budget By Appropriating $1,200,000 From The General Fund Fund Balance To The Multi- Year General Subfund For Ongoing Costs Related To The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Valuation. (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) (Refer to the Finance Committee on September 3, 2026; Advance to September 10, 2026 for Public Hearing) 19. CITIZENS' COMMENTS ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA - continuation (each person's comments limited to 3 minutes) 20. ASSEMBLYMEMBERS' COMMENTS 21. ADJOURNMENT THE AGENDA ITEMS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE DELETION OF ITEMS OR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, IF NEEDED. Page 3 of 1055 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH Regular Assembly Meeting August 13, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER A Regular meeting of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly was held August 13, 2026, in the Mona Lisa Drexler Assembly Chambers of the Juanita Helms Administration Center, 907 Terminal Street, Fairbanks, Alaska. NONSECTARIAN INVOCATION Presiding Officer Crass gave a land acknowledgement. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Presiding Officer Crass led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL There were present: Scott Crass, Presiding Officer and David Guttenberg Brett Rotermund Garrett Armstrong Nick LaJiness Tammie Wilson Kristan Kelly Patrick Roach Liz Reeves Comprising a quorum of the Assembly, and Grier Hopkins, Borough Mayor Kuba Grzeda, Chief of Staff Rocky Esposito, Acting Borough Attorney Kellen Spillman, Community Planning Director Matthew Boyer, Parks and Recreation Director Crystal Tidwell, City of Fairbanks Representative Sandra Rolfe, City of North Pole Representative Bobby Burgess, School Board Representative Jonathan Shambare, Design and Construction Manager Jeremy Spargur, Architect/Engineer Jahanara Carreon, School District Executive Director of Facilities Management Kevin McKinley, Planning Commission Chair Anduin McElroy, Planner III Iain Miller, Emergency Services Manager April Trickey, MMC, Borough Clerk Gina Gregg, CMC, Deputy Clerk Absent & Excused None Page 4 of 1055REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND ANY OTHER PROCEDURAL MOTIONS None CITIZENS' COMMENTS - Each person's comments limited to 3 minutes (Citizens' Comments shall recess at 6:50 p.m. for public hearing) 6.a. A citizen may speak on agenda items not scheduled for public hearing (Memorandums, Bid Awards, Unfinished Business {items postponed from previous meetings, reconsideration, or notice of intent to rescind}, Resolutions, or Ordinances being advanced to a public hearing on a different date). Citizens' comments on Board of Adjustment matters are not permitted. None 6.b. Items that are not scheduled on the agenda. Gray Harrison, resident of the Borough, requested an ordinance for noise control for animals. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Approval of the consent agenda passes all routine items indicated by an asterisk (*) on the agenda. Consent agenda items are not considered separately unless an Assemblymember so requests. Note: If the consent item to be removed is an ordinance up to be introduced, advanced, or referred, it takes two Assemblymembers to remove the item from the consent agenda. In the event of such a request, the item is returned to the general agenda. REEVES, moved to approve agenda and consent Seconded by ARMSTRONG agenda as read. VOTE ON MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA AS READ. Yeses: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Wilson, Kelly, Roach, Reeves, Crass Noes: None MOTION PASSED 9 Yeses, 0 Noes APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.a. *Regular Assembly Meeting minutes of July 23, 2026. Without objection this measure was read by title and approved under the consent agenda. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 2 Page 5 of 1055COMMUNICATIONS TO THE ASSEMBLY 9.a. *Memorandum from Kellen Spillman, Director of Community Planning, regarding the vacation of a 50-foot-wide section line easement. (VA009-26) (Located within Government Lot 12, Section 18, T.1N., R.1E). Without objection this measure was read by title and approved under the consent agenda. 9.b. *Memorandum from April Trickey, MMC, Borough Clerk, regarding the resignation of Michael Roddewig from the Trails Advisory Commission. Without objection this measure was read by title and approved under the consent agenda. 9.c. *Memorandum from Mayor Hopkins requesting a correction of the appointment of Daniel Ponickly to the Ester Fire Service Area Commission. Without objection this measure was read by title and approved under the consent agenda. 9.d. *Memorandum from Mayor Hopkins regarding the resignation of John Anderson from the North Star Fire Service Area Commission. Without objection this measure was read by title and approved under the consent agenda. 9.e. *Memorandum from Mayor Hopkins recommending the appointment of various Service Area Commissioners. Without objection this measure was read by title and approved under the consent agenda. MESSAGES FROM THE BOROUGH MAYOR Mayor Hopkins announced an open house at the Centennial Center on August 13 from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to discuss the new train trestle project in Alaskaland. An open house will also be held on August 17 in North Pole from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for the 5th Avenue Park project. The Chena Lake Art and Music Festival is scheduled for August 15 from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Chena Lakes Recreation Area, the Fairbanks Block Party will take place on August 15 from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Alaskaland, and the Veterans Stand Down at the Carlson Center from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Community Planning will host its fourth volunteer cleanup at 1128 Copper Street on August 15 at 9:00 a.m., and the comment period for the Comprehensive Plan will close on August 15. The West Chatanika land lottery was successful, with 257 lottery tickets sold, and several parcels sold through the online auction bid. The second edition of the Citizen's Academy opened the week of August 10, with all slots already filled. REPORTS OF STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Assemblymember Kelly reported the City of Fairbanks countered the Borough's offer for pickleball with a game of mini-golf. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 3 Page 6 of 1055REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES 12.a. Report from the City of Fairbanks Representative City of Fairbanks Representative Crystal Tidwell commented that the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6350, Enacting FGC Sec 70-63 Requiring RFP, Certain Procedures for Lease of City Property; adopted Resolution No. 5221, Support of SOA DEC Proposal to Divide FNSB Non-Attainment Area; and adopted Resolution No. 5225, Counterchallenging FNSB Assembly to Mini Golf Match. Additionally, the City hosted the America 250 block party in July, which was very successful. There is concern from the Council and citizens regarding blighted properties, with numerous requests from citizens indicating this is a top priority. The Council will continue to address budget challenges, with work sessions for the City budget scheduled for late October and early November. Mr. Marney has termed out and there are 3 individuals running for Seat E, while Mr. Ringstad is running unopposed, and there are no ballot measures. An involuntary abatement has also been completed near Trainor Gate and F Street. 12.b. Report from the City of North Pole Representative City of North Pole Representative Sandra Rolfe commented that they have offered a position for their city clerk position, mentioned the City of North Pole Farmer's Market on Fridays from 3-7 p.m. and offered the new Pole-In-One mini golf facility for the City and Borough mini golf challenge. 12.c. Report from the School Board Representative School Board Representative Bobby Burgess commented that the School District welcomed teachers back on August 12. Students' first day of school is August 18. President Burgess reported reading proficiency in elementary schools, increasing 11 percent district-wide, graduation rates are at a record high, and saw 495 industry certifications earned through CTE programs. North Star students earned 4,368 college credits and 1,500 AP hours were logged by students. There will be a new threat assessment protocol for the 2026-27 school year to ensure a safer environment for students. Mr. Burgess also reported that there will be excellent bus route coverage this year, that the district will continue their partnership with Playworks, and gave the Board's goals for this year. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 4 Page 7 of 1055SPECIAL ORDERS - Public Hearing at or after 7:00 p.m. (each person's comments limited to 3 minutes) 13.a. ORDINANCE NO. 2026-11. An Ordinance Rezoning Lots 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, And 15, Block 8, Charles Slater Homestead Subdivision, And A Portion Of Blocks 8 And 12, Charles Slater Homestead Subdivision From Light Industrial (LI) To Two-Family Residential (TF) Or Other Appropriate Zone; And Rezoning Lots 1 And 3, Block 8, Charles Slater Homestead Subdivision And A Portion Of Block 12, Charles Slater Homestead Subdivision, Lot 1 And The Westerly Portion Of Lot 2, CD&E Subdivision, From Light Industrial (LI) To Light Commercial (LC) Or Other Appropriate Zone; And Rezoning A Portion Of Block 11, Charles Slater Homestead Subdivision And The Easterly Portion Of Lot 2, CD&E Subdivision From Two-Family Residential (TF) To Light Commercial (LC) Or Other Appropriate Zone; And Rezoning Lots 1 And 2, CD&E Subdivision And A Portion Of Block 11, Charles Slater Homestead Subdivision To Add A Waterways Protection (WP) Overlay Of 25 Feet Landward Of The Ordinary High Water Mark Of The Noyes Slough (Located East Of Clara Street, West Of Noyes Slough, South Of Charles Street, And North Of Minnie Street). (RZ2026-004) (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) Kellen Spillman, Community Planning Director; Anduin McElroy, Planner III; and Kevin McKinley, Planning Commission Chair, gave a staff report. The Presiding Officer called for public testimony, there being none public hearing was closed. KELLY, moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2026-11. Seconded by REEVES VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2026-11. Yeses: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Wilson, Kelly, Roach, Reeves, Crass Noes: None MOTION PASSED 9 Yeses, 0 Noes 13.b. ORDINANCE NO. 2026-19. An Ordinance Rezoning Government Lot 14, Section 7, Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Fairbanks Meridian From Single-Family Residential (SF-10) To Two-Family Residential (TF) Or Other Appropriate Zone (Located Between Windsor Drive And Fairbanks Street, North Of Birch Lane). (RZ2026-005) (Sponsor: FNSB Assembly) FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 5 Page 8 of 1055Public Hearing – continued Assemblymember Reeves declared a potential conflict of interest as she has been adverse to the applicant's representative in court on several occasions, and that she believed she would not be able to hear the matter impartially. She also expressed concern that there would be an appearance of bias if she were to consider the item. The Presiding Officer ruled a conflict did exist and Ms. Reeves was excused from the dais. Kellen Spillman, Community Planning Director; Anduin McElroy, Planner III; and Kevin McKinley, Planning Commission Chair, gave a staff report. The Presiding Officer called for public testimony. Kate Doran, resident of the Borough, spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 2026-19. Karen Brauser, resident of the Borough, spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 2026-19. Achim Brauser, resident of the Borough, spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 2026-19. Thomas Kowalczyk, resident of the Borough,spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 2026-19. Patricia Duvlea, resident of the Borough, spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 2026-19. David Joseph, resident of the Borough, spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 2026-19. Tammy Smith, resident of the Borough, spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 2026-19. Jomo Stewart, resident of the Borough, spoke in support of Ordinance No. 2026-19. Mike Lund, resident of the Borough, spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 2026-19. Spencer Vivlamore, resident of the Borough, spoke in support of Ordinance No. 2026-19. Riley Vivlamore, resident of the Borough, spoke in support of Ordinance No. 2026-19. Tim Doran, resident of the Borough, spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 2026-19. Angie Tallant, resident of the Borough, spoke in support of Ordinance No. 2026-19. Jordyne Vivlamore, resident of the Borough, spoke in support of Ordinance No. 2026-19. Christopher Bodle, resident of the Borough and Applicant's Representative, spoke in support of Ordinance No. 2026-19. Bill Vivlamore, resident of the Borough and Applicant, spoke in support of Ordinance No. 2026-19. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 6 Page 9 of 1055Public Hearing – continued Susan Jones, resident of the Borough, spoke in opposition to Ordinance No. 2026-19. The Presiding Officer called for further public testimony, there being none public hearing was closed. ROTERMUND, moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2026-19. Seconded by WILSON Discussion ensued. VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2026-19. Yeses: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Wilson, Kelly, Roach, Crass Noes: None MOTION PASSED 8 Yeses, 0 Noes WILSON, moved to immediately reconsider Ordinance Seconded by ROTERMUND No. 2026-19. VOTE ON MOTION TO IMMEDIATELY RECONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 2026-19. Yeses: None Noes: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Wilson, Kelly, Roach, Crass MOTION FAILED 0 Yeses, 8 Noes Assemblymember Reeves returned to the dais. 13.c. ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1C. An Ordinance Amending The FY 2026-27 Budget By Appropriating $717,427 In Federal Grant Funds And $179,357 In Local Matching Funds From The Transit Enterprise Operating Fund Unrestricted Net Position For The Purchase And Implementation Of An Integrated Transportation App. (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) Kuba Grzeda, Chief of Staff, gave a staff report. The Presiding Officer called for public testimony, there being none public hearing was closed. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 7 Page 10 of 1055Public Hearing – continued REEVES, moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2026-20-1C. Seconded by ARMSTRONG Discussion ensued. VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1C. Yeses: Guttenberg, Armstrong, LaJiness, Kelly, Roach, Reeves, Crass Noes: Rotermund, Wilson MOTION PASSED 7 Yeses, 2 Noes 13.d. ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1D. An Ordinance Amending The FY 2026-27 Budget By Appropriating $280,000 From The Non-Areawide Fund Balance To The Capital Projects Fund For The Purchase Of New Ambulance Gurneys And Loading Equipment. (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) Iain Miller, Emergency Services Manager, gave a staff report. The Presiding Officer called for public testimony. Scott Learned, resident of the Borough and Steese Volunteer Fire Department Chief, spoke in support of Ordinance No. 2026-20-1D. The Presiding Officer called for further public testimony, there being none public hearing was closed. KELLY, moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2026-20-1D. Seconded by REEVES Discussion ensued. VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1D. Yeses: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Wilson, Kelly, Roach, Reeves, Crass Noes: None MOTION PASSED 9 Yeses, 0 Noes FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 8 Page 11 of 1055Public Hearing – continued 13.e. ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1E. An Ordinance Amending The FY 2026-27 Budget By Appropriating $300,000 From The Steese Volunteer Fire Service Area Fund Balance To The Capital Projects Fund For Fire Station 62 Basement Water Leak Repairs. (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) Assemblymembers Reeves declared a possible conflict of interest as she is closing on a house within the Steese Fire Service Area. The Presiding Officer ruled a conflict of interest did not exist as Ms. Reeves has the same general interest as other taxpayers in the area. Assemblymember Wilson declared a possible conflict of interest as she owns property within the Steese Fire Service Area. The Presiding Officer ruled a conflict of interest did not exist as Ms. Wilson has the same general interest as other taxpayers in the area. Assemblymember Kelly declared a possible conflict of interest as she lives within the Steese Fire Service Area. The Presiding Officer ruled a conflict of interest did not exist as Ms. Kelly has the same general interest as other taxpayers in the area. Iain Miller, Emergency Services Manager, gave a staff report. The Presiding Officer called for public testimony. Scott Learned, resident of the Borough and Steese Volunteer Fire Department Chief, spoke in support of Ordinance No. 2026-20-1E. The Presiding Officer called for further public testimony, there being none public hearing was closed. WILSON, moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2026-20-1E. Seconded by REEVES Discussion ensued. VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1E. Yeses: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Wilson, Kelly, Roach, Reeves, Crass Noes: None MOTION PASSED 9 Yeses, 0 Noe FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 9 Page 12 of 1055Public Hearing – continued 13.f. ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1F. An Ordinance Amending The FY 2026-27 Budget By Appropriating $200,000 From The Comprehensive Plans Reserve And $150,000 From The General Fund Fund Balance To The Multi-Year General Subfund For The Comprehensive Parks And Recreation Plan Project. (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) Kellen Spillman, Community Planning Director, and Matthew Boyer, Parks and Recreation Director, gave a staff report. The Presiding Officer called for public testimony, there being none public hearing was closed. REEVES, moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2026-20-1F. Seconded by KELLY Discussion ensued. VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1F. Yeses: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Kelly, Roach, Reeves, Crass Noes: Wilson MOTION PASSED 8 Yeses, 1 Noes KELLY, moved to immediately reconsider Ordinance Seconded by REEVES No. 2026-20-1F. VOTE ON MOTION TO IMMEDIATELY RECONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1F. Yeses: Wilson Noes: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Kelly, Roach, Reeves, Crass MOTION FAILED 1 Yeses, 8 Noes 13.g. ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1G. An Ordinance Amending The FY 2026-27 Budget By Appropriating $450,000 From The Capital Improvement Program And Maintenance Reserve To The Capital Projects Fund For The School District Scoreboards Project. (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 10 Page 13 of 1055Public Hearing – continued Jahanara Carreon, Fairbanks North Star Borough School District Facilities Management Executive Director, and Jeremy Spargur, Architect/Engineer, gave a staff report. The Presiding Officer called for public testimony, there being none public hearing was closed. WILSON, moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2026-20-1G. Seconded by ROACH WILSON, moved to substitute Ordinance No. 2026-20- Seconded by ROACH 1G. Discussion ensued. The Presiding Officer ruled a vote on the substitute would carry the main motion. VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1G, AS SUBSTITUTED. Yeses: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Wilson, Kelly, Roach, Reeves, Crass Noes: None MOTION PASSED 9 Yeses, 0 Noes GUTTENBERG, moved to immediately reconsider Ordinance Seconded by WILSON No. 2026-20-1G. VOTE ON MOTION TO IMMEDIATELY RECONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1G. Yeses: None Noes: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Wilson, Kelly, Roach, Reeves, Crass MOTION FAILED 0 Yeses, 9 Noes 13.h. ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1H. An Ordinance Amending The FY 2026-27 Budget By Appropriating $200,000 From The Capital Improvement Program And Maintenance Reserve To The Capital Projects Fund For The Chena Lake Office Domestic Water System Project. (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) Jeremy Spargur, Architect/Engineer, and Jonathan Shambare, Design and Construction Manager, gave a staff report. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 11 Page 14 of 1055Public Hearing – continued The Presiding Officer called for public testimony, there being none public hearing was closed. REEVES, moved to adopt Ordinance No. 2026-20-1H. Seconded by ARMSTRONG VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1H. Yeses: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Wilson, Kelly, Roach, Reeves, Crass Noes: None MOTION PASSED 9 Yeses, 0 Noes CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR - Unfinished Business None CITIZENS' COMMENTS ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING - continuation (each person's comments limited to 3 minutes) None CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR - New Business - Resolutions 16.a. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-23. A Resolution Naming The Fairbanks North Star Borough’s New Animal Shelter The Ronnie Rosenberg Animal Shelter. (Sponsor: Assemblymember Crass) Presiding Officer Crass passed the gavel to Deputy Presiding Officer Reeves and gave a staff report. KELLY, moved to adopt Resolution No. 2026-23. Seconded by WILSON Discussion ensued. Assemblymembers Kelly, Wilson, Rotermund, Guttenberg, and Reeves requested to be added as co-sponsors. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 12 Page 15 of 1055New Business – Resolutions – continued VOTE ON MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2026-23. Yeses: Guttenberg, Rotermund, Armstrong, LaJiness, Wilson, Kelly, Roach, Crass, Reeves Noes: None MOTION PASSED 9 Yeses, 0 Noes Deputy Presiding Officer Reeves passed the gavel back to Presiding Officer Crass. 16.b. *RESOLUTION NO. 2026-24. A Resolution Adopting The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan As The Official Hazard Mitigation Plan Of The Borough. (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) (Advance to August 27, 2026) Without objection the measure was read by title, introduced and advanced to August 27, 2026 meeting. CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR - New Business - Ordinances to be Referred to Committees or Commissions None CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR - New Business - Ordinances to be Introduced and Advanced to Public Hearing 18.a. *ORDINANCE NO. 2026-21. An Ordinance Authorizing The Mayor To Enter Into A Lease Agreement With Interior Alaska American Legion Post 99 At Less Than Fair Rental Value For Operation Of An American Legion Post On A Two Acre Portion Of Tract E Of Grieme Farm Subdivision (Located At Grieme Road And Richardson Highway At Approximately Milepost 331.5). (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) (Refer to the Committee of the Whole on August 20, 2026; Advance to August 27, 2026 for Public Hearing) Without objection the measure was read by title, introduced and referred under the consent agenda to the Committee of the Whole on August 20, 2026; Advanced to August 27, 2026 for Public Hearing. CITIZENS' COMMENTS ON ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA - continuation (each person's comments limited to 3 minutes) Sheree Gorkowski, resident of the Borough, spoke about her disappointment with the Animal Shelter veterinarian contract process. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 13 Page 16 of 1055ASSEMBLYMEMBERS' COMMENTS Assemblymember Wilson announced the 5th Avenue Playground open house in North Pole from 4:30-7:00 p.m. at the park on August 17. She also requested an update from the Administration on a business proposal to use Joy Elementary School for manufacturing arctic windows. Assemblymember Rotermund commented that the arctic windows are great, and commented about the loss of a community member, Dan Gorrod. Assemblymember Roach commented about the loss of a community member, Will Rogers. Assemblymember Crass announced the Assembly schedule: • Monday, August 17, 2026: Regional Emergency Services Advisory Committee at 6:00 p.m. in the Assembly Chambers. • Thursday, August 20, 2026: Special Assembly Meeting at 5:30 p.m., immediately followed by a Finance Committee meeting, with a Committee of the Whole Worksession immediately following in the Assembly Chambers. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly, the meeting was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. Scott Crass Presiding Officer ATTEST: April Trickey, MMC Borough Clerk FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH August 13, 2026 DRAFT Regular Assembly Meeting Minutes Page 14 Page 17 of 1055Page 18 of 1055Page 19 of 1055Page 20 of 1055Page 21 of 1055Page 22 of 1055Page 23 of 1055Page 24 of 1055Page 25 of 1055Page 26 of 1055Page 27 of 1055Page 28 of 1055Page 29 of 1055Page 30 of 1055Page 31 of 1055Page 32 of 1055Page 33 of 1055Page 34 of 1055Page 35 of 1055 1 By: Committee of the Whole 2 Introduced: August 27, 2026 3 4 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH 5 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2026 – 25 7 8 A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING AND SUPPORTING LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES 9 10 WHEREAS, The Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly identifies and 11 supports the following legislative priorities for 2027: 12 13 State Legislative Priorities 14 15 PERS contribution rate and retention strategies 16 Maintain a 22% PERS contribution rate or less, as was agreed to by PERS employers and 17 the state in allocating the unfunded liability, providing for certainty of set rates for all 18 employers. Principles to consider: 19 a. Reinstatement of defined-benefit plans for public employees: Address 20 the significant challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified public servants, 21 particularly in critical areas such as education, public safety, transportation, and 22 other essential public services. High turnover rates and recruitment difficulties 23 have exacerbated staffing shortages, negatively impacting the quality and 24 reliability of services provided to our community. Reinstating defined benefit plans 25 will mitigate these challenges by offering more attractive and stable retirement 26 benefits, thereby improving retention and recruitment of public employees. 27 b. Focused efforts on liability reduction: Develop strategies to reduce the 28 unfunded liability and overall liability through cost reduction programs as well as 29 risk and liability sharing with employees. 30 c. Funding and sustainability: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy for 31 the defined benefit plan that includes regular assessments of the plan's health and Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 1 of 9 Page 36 of 105532 adjustments as necessary to maintain long-term sustainability without burdening 33 future generations. 34 d. Do not support changes that add to the unfunded liability of the program or 35 increase contribution percentages. 36 37 The State of Alaska should alter the funding formula to incentivize economic 38 development and continue to increase the Base Student Allocation 39 Permanently increase the Base Student Allocation (BSA) to at least $7,768 and 40 incorporate an inflation-adjustment mechanism into the funding formula to ensure long- 41 term sustainability and alignment with the rising cost of education. 42 43 Natural gas pipeline to Fairbanks 44 A natural gas pipeline of any diameter from the North Slope to Southcentral Alaska must 45 include, either as part of its base design or as a fully funded addition after completion of 46 the main line, a spur line to Fairbanks such that Interior residents are not bypassed by 47 the project. Rates for gas from the line should be “postage stamp” rates; that is, the 48 same price for all Alaskans served by the line regardless of their location. 49 50 Support for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons 51 Increase funding to support the resolution of cold cases, as well as information campaigns 52 publicizing the need for Alaskans’ help in solving cases of missing and murdered people 53 across the state. 54 55 School bond debt reimbursement 56 In accordance with longstanding commitments made by the Legislature, the state should 57 return to paying its full share of school bond debt taken out with the explicit promise that 58 the state would pay its share. 59 Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 2 of 9 Page 37 of 105560 Community revenue sharing 61 The State should restore funds to its Community Assistance Program (a.k.a. Community 62 Revenue Sharing) to help provide essential services that local communities may not be in 63 a position to fund themselves without undue burden on local property taxpayers. 64 65 Public records exception for animal adopter information 66 Animals are occasionally impounded and adopted out after the appropriate holding time. 67 Through a public record request, the identity of the new owners of the animal may be 68 disclosed to the previous owner. New owners are occasionally harassed by the previous 69 owner of the animal. A change in state law that would allow for adopter information to 70 be withheld from a public records request would prevent this type of abuse. 71 72 Alaska Long Trail 73 The FNSB supports the continued development of the Alaska Long trail though federal, 74 state and private grants and access though state and borough land. 75 76 Roads and Highways Advisory Board 77 The Governor's Board on Roads and Highways, which sunsetted on June 30, 2025, 78 provided valuable local input to the state Department of Transportation and Public 79 Facilities and should be permanently created in statute to avoid future lapses in input. 80 While that legislation works through the committee process, we encourage the Interior 81 Delegation to strongly urge Gov. Mike Dunleavy to reinstate the board through executive 82 action, allowing it to meet virtually if necessary for budget reasons. This board is a vital 83 source of public input and feedback in matters related to surface transportation. 84 85 Next Generation 911 86 The State should establish Next Generation 911 (NG911) as its emergency services 87 standard, establish a sustainable model to fund that standard and clarify authority 88 between different regions and levels of government. In furtherance of this effort, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 3 of 9 Page 38 of 1055 89 state should establish common GIS standards across jurisdictions, as well as standards 90 for sharing information to maintain that GIS data. 91 92 Full Funding of Real Property Tax Revenue Reimbursement 93 Prioritize the full funding of real property tax revenue reimbursements as outlined in AS 94 29.45.030(9). The state has not met its statutory obligation to reimburse boroughs and 95 cities for the property tax revenues lost due to mandatory exemptions. This shortfall has 96 placed an undue financial burden on local governments, which rely heavily on these funds 97 to provide essential services to our communities. 98 99 Statewide Spay and Neuter Program 100 The FNSB recognizes the significant challenges that communities across Alaska face in 101 addressing pet overpopulation, animal welfare, and the costs associated with sheltering 102 and caring for unwanted animals. Spaying and neutering are proven, humane strategies 103 for reducing the number of stray and abandoned animals, lowering shelter intake, 104 decreasing euthanasia rates and related health safety issues. Expanded access to 105 affordable sterilization services by utilizing proceeds from the sales of specialty license 106 plates and Pick-Click-Give to fund grant and voucher programs would help reduce the 107 financial burden on municipalities, nonprofits, and taxpayers. The FNSB supports the 108 establishment of a statewide spay and neuter program, administered in partnership with 109 municipalities, veterinarians, and animal welfare organizations. 110 111 Moratorium on Data Center Development in Alaska 112 The FNSB supports a moratorium on the permitting, leasing, or construction of new 113 commercial data centers on state-owned or municipal lands in Alaska until the State of 114 Alaska and local governments have developed and adopted standards addressing 115 electrical demand, water consumption and shortages, environmental impacts, noise, air 116 quality, and land use pollution, and other public interest considerations associated with 117 data center development. 118 Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 4 of 9 Page 39 of 1055119 Re-establish and implement an external, local citizen review panel for 120 permanency planning, substantially as it was originally enacted State Law, Ch. 121 117, SLA 1990 122 The Fairbanks North Star Borough supports reestablishing the Citizens' Review Panel for 123 Permanency Planning for certain children in state custody, consistent with 117 SLA 1990. 124 125 Expansion of the Tanana Valley State Forest 126 Support the expansion of the Tanana Valley State Forest to protect public access, promote 127 sustainable timber harvest, improve wildlife habitat, and preserve opportunities for 128 hunting, fishing, trapping and subsistence uses. Expanding the forest will provide long 129 term certainty for multi-user management while simultaneously supporting the local 130 economy and responsible stewardship of public lands. The Borough encourages the State 131 of Alaska to identify and acquire suitable state lands adjacent to the existing forest where 132 appropriate, ensuring that future management balances conservation, recreation, and 133 public access for future generations. 134 135 Continued Funding for the Ruth Barnette Sport Fish Hatchery 136 Support continued funding for the Ruth Barnette Sport Fish Hatchery to maintain and 137 enhance local recreational fishing opportunities throughout the Borough. The hatchery 138 plays a vital role in supporting fisheries that contribute to local quality of life, tourism, 139 education, outdoor recreation and the regional economy. Stable funding will ensure 140 continued fish production, educational opportunities, and benefit residents and visitors 141 while helping to sustain Alaska's outdoor heritage. 142 143 Increase Upriver Salmon Returns 144 The Borough supports State and Federal legislation and international agreements to ban 145 bottom trawling and create regulatory reform and new management practices that reduce 146 bycatch and improve salmon returns to Interior rivers. Healthy salmon populations are 147 essential to our subsistence, personal use, sport and commercial fisheries as well as Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 5 of 9 Page 40 of 1055148 deeply intertwined with cultural and economic well-being of the Fairbanks North Star 149 Borough and Interior Alaska. 150 151 Forward funding for education 152 Support forward funding of Alaska's K–12 public education system to provide school 153 districts with predictable, stable funding that allows for responsible budgeting, staffing, 154 and long-term planning. Annual uncertainty surrounding education funding creates 155 unnecessary instability for students, educators, families, and local governments. Forward 156 funding improves fiscal planning, reduces administrative costs associated with delayed 157 budgets, and allows districts to focus on educational outcomes rather than recurring 158 financial uncertainty. 159 160 Restore National Board Certification Reimbursement 161 Support the State of Alaska restoring funding for the reimbursement of National Board 162 Certification costs for teachers and counselors. National Board certification represents a 163 highly desired national professional credential and has been shown to improve 164 instructional quality and student achievement. Reinstating reimbursement demonstrates 165 a commitment to professional excellence in our schools, supports teacher recruitment 166 and retention, and shows a commitment to continued investment in our educational 167 workforce. 168 169 Equitable School Testing Requirements: 170 Currently, only 13% of homeschooled students in Alaska participate in state assessments. 171 To ensure equitable expectations for all Alaskan students and strengthen accountability 172 for public education resources, we support establishing clear testing expectations for 173 homeschool programs. Incentivize participation in the AK STAR assessment by linking 174 allotment eligibility to students taking AK STAR: Alaska System of Academic Readiness. 175 176 Support State Funding for the 2028 Arctic Winter Games Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 6 of 9 Page 41 of 1055177 The Fairbanks North Star Borough requests a state appropriation of $3 million to assist 178 the Borough in hosting the Arctic Winter Games. Established in 1969 by Governor Wally 179 Hickel, the Arctic Winter Games are the premier international sporting and cultural event 180 in the circumpolar North, bringing together thousands of athletes, coaches, officials, 181 volunteers, and visitors from across the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Alaska, 182 Northern Alberta, Nunavik, Greenland, and Sápmi regions. Hosting the Games will 183 generate a significant economic impact for Alaska, estimated to be over 8 million dollars, 184 while showcasing the state's culture, hospitality, and world-class winter recreation 185 opportunities and providing a world class stage for athletes from around the world. 186 187 Federal Legislative Priorities 188 189 Urge the EPA to exempt vehicle emissions from PM2.5 control strategy 190 requirements 191 The conformity freeze on local highway projects completed with federal funds has had 192 outsized negative economic effects on the communities in the borough. These impacts 193 are far out of keeping with vehicles’ role in PM2.5 pollution, as the share of PM2.5 194 pollution caused by vehicles (and thus the potential air quality benefit from measures 195 that limit road construction and maintenance) is small. We urge the EPA to exempt 196 vehicle emissions from control strategy requirements for the area or to categorize them 197 as de minimis, to remove or reduce the specter of future conformity freezes that would 198 greatly harm the community without tangible offsetting air quality benefits. 199 200 Moratorium on Data Center Development in Alaska 201 The FNSB supports a moratorium on the permitting, leasing, or construction of new 202 commercial data centers on state-owned or municipal lands in Alaska until the State of 203 Alaska and local governments have developed and adopted standards addressing 204 electrical demand, water consumption and shortages, environmental impacts, noise, air 205 quality, and land use pollution, and other public interest considerations associated with 206 data center development. Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 7 of 9 Page 42 of 1055207 208 Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment 209 Support for congressional action recognizing and ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment 210 to the US constitution, affirming that equality under the law shall not be denied or 211 abridged on account of sex. Equal protection is the fundamental American principal. 212 Ratification would provide clear constitutional recognition that all people deserve equal 213 treatment under the law and recognize the will of the vast majority of Alaskans. 214 215 Oppose Harmful Tariffs 216 the Fairbanks North Star Borough depends heavily on goods accessed through Canada 217 and opposes broad tariffs that increase costs for our families, businesses and local 218 government. Due to our geographic isolation and dependence on imports tariffs 219 disproportionately affect us in the interior. Higher costs for construction materials, 220 equipment, food and fuel have all resulted from these tariffs. The Borough supports trade 221 policies that strengthen our local industry and allow for open economic bonds allowing 222 for the growth and export of local products as well as driving down costs and reducing 223 inflationary pressure. 224 225 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Assembly of the Fairbanks 226 North Star Borough supports these legislative priorities. 227 228 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Assembly requests the Clerk to 229 distribute a copy of this resolution to the Alaska Interior Delegation and the Honorable 230 Governor Dunleavy and the Alaska Congressional Delegation. 231 232 ADOPTED THE _____ DAY OF __________ 2026. 233 234 235 _____________________________ 236 Scott Crass 237 Presiding Officer 238 Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 8 of 9 Page 43 of 1055239 240 241 ATTEST: 242 243 ________________________________ 244 April Trickey, MMC 245 Borough Clerk Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 9 of 9 Page 44 of 1055 Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor’s Office Natural Resources Development land@fnsb.gov Main: (907) 459-1241 Fax: (907) 459-1122 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly THROUGH: Grier Hopkins, Mayor Kuba Grzeda, Chief of Staff FROM: Daniel Welch, Natural Resources Development Manager DATE: August 13, 2026 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2026-21. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH INTERIOR ALASKA AMERICAN LEGION POST 99 AT LESS THAN FAIR RENTAL VALUE FOR OPERATION OF AN AMERICAN LEGION POST ON A TWO ACRE PORTION OF TRACT E OF GRIEME FARM SUBDIVISION (LOCATED AT GRIEME ROAD AND RICHARDSON HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY MILEPOST 331.5) The Borough was approached by Interior Alaska American Legion Post 99, a non-profit, regarding leasing a portion of Borough land about the time the Veteran’s Cemetery was approved and moving forward. The request is to lease approximately 2 acres of land for a creation of an established American Legion post that supports veterans within our community and upcoming the Veteran’s Cemetery. Since the Borough received the property by patent, it came with an encumbrance of an indefinite gravel extraction agreement with Alaska DOT. Because of this agreement, the Borough as not done much with this land. However, DOT is willing to remove a portion of the encumbrance for the purposes of a lease to Legion Post 99. Based on the current gravel extraction extent, there will not be a conflict of use between DOT and the American Legion. The lease is proposed as less than fair rental value lease, a nominal one dollar per year, because of the public benefit the organization will provide to the Borough residents. Our Borough has a robust veteran community and not only will the Post 99 location support the planned cemetery, it will also provide support for veterans not in or near the City of Fairbanks. We support the resolution and urge its adoption. Thank you. Physical: 907 Terminal St. Fairbanks, AK 99701 Website: fnsb.gov Mailing: PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707 Page 45 of 1055 1 By: Grier Hopkins, Mayor 2 Introduced: August 27, 2026 3 4 5 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH 6 7 ORDINANCE NO. 2026 – 21 8 9 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT 10 WITH INTERIOR ALASKA AMERICAN LEGION POST 99 AT LESS THAN FAIR RENTAL 11 VALUE FOR OPERATION OF AN AMERICAN LEGION POST ON A TWO ACRE PORTION 12 OF TRACT E OF GRIEME FARM SUBDIVISION (LOCATED AT GRIEME ROAD AND 13 RICHARDSON HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY MILEPOST 331.5) 14 15 WHEREAS, The Fairbanks North Star Borough (Borough) owns real property 16 described as Tract E of Grieme Farm Subdivision, according to the plat filed on April 30, 17 1999 as Plat No. 99-32, Records of the Fairbanks Recording District, Fourth Judicial 18 District, State of Alaska, as shown on Exhibit A; and 19 20 WHEREAS, Interior Alaska American Legion Post 99 (Post 99) requests to 21 lease approximately two acres of Tract E for less than fair rental value with access or 22 frontage onto the existing Grieme Road for the purpose of establishing an American 23 Legion post in the Salcha area, as shown on Exhibit B; and 24 25 WHEREAS, The American Legion is a national organization with localized 26 posts generally operated by veterans and dedicated to supporting veteran programs and 27 needs; and 28 29 WHEREAS, Post 99 intends to support local veterans’ services to include 30 support of the Interior of Alaska Veterans Cemetery located in Salcha with an anticipated 31 completed construction date of October 2027; and 32 33 WHEREAS, Post 99 has received support from State officials to include the 34 Governor’s office as well as the State of Alaska Office of Veterans Affairs who identified Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 1 of 4 Page 46 of 105535 Post 99 as “an outstanding potential partner” for the new cemetery as shown on Exhibit 36 C; and 37 38 WHEREAS, The Borough is a relatively expansive municipality and is home 39 to a substantial per capita veteran population with only one other American Legion post 40 location near downtown Fairbanks; and 41 42 WHEREAS, The Borough received this land from the State of Alaska via 43 Patent No. 14126 which is subject to a material sale agreement (ADL 23804); and 44 45 WHEREAS, The Borough has limited use of this parcel due to an indefinite 46 gravel agreement with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 47 (DOT) via ADL 23804 approved on July 20, 1964 and found in book 168 page 179 48 Fairbanks Recording District; and 49 50 WHEREAS, The DOT has agreed to removing a portion of the gravel 51 extraction encumbrance in support of the lease to Post 99; and 52 53 WHEREAS, FNSBC 20.16.020(C) requires a competitive process to lease 54 Borough land that is suitable for a commercial or industrial use; and 55 56 WHEREAS, The parcel is deemed unsuitable for commercial or industrial use 57 due to the existing DOT gravel extraction agreement; and 58 59 WHEREAS, The DOT is amending the agreement and encumbrance due to 60 the American Legion use, not other commercial or industrial use; and 61 62 WHEREAS, Post 99 have requested a lease with an initial term of four years 63 with one renewal term of an additional four years; and 64 Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 2 of 4 Page 47 of 105565 WHEREAS, FNSBC 20.16.020(D) states the Assembly may authorize the 66 Mayor to lease Borough land for less than fair rental value only in the ordinance 67 authorizing the lease contains a finding that the lease is for a compelling public purpose 68 or use and a statement of facts on which the finding is based; and 69 70 WHEREAS, The Division of Natural Resources Development has reviewed 71 records for the property and there are no existing mining claims or other third-party 72 interests known to the Borough within the proposed lease area that impact or are 73 impacted by the proposed lease or adjoining properties with a land interest that would 74 require notification of the proposed lease, claims and interests pursuant to FNSBC 75 20.16.020(B). 76 77 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Assembly of the Fairbanks 78 North Star Borough: 79 80 Section 1. Classification. This ordinance is not of a general and permanent 81 nature and shall not be codified. 82 83 Section 2. Determination of a Compelling Public Purpose or Need. The 84 Assembly hereby finds that granting this lease at less than fair rental value meets the 85 conditions of a compelling public purpose based upon the following facts: 86 1. The Borough has a large veteran population and Interior Alaska American 87 Legion Post 99 is a non-profit entity that is part of an established national 88 organization focused on supporting military veterans and their families. 89 2. The Interior Alaska American Legion Post 99 has been identified as a willing 90 and potential supporting organization for the planned and funded Interior 91 of Alaska Veterans Cemetery 92 3. An American Legion post in Salcha will provide support for veterans in our 93 expansive municipality with limited means to travel towards downtown 94 Fairbanks where a majority of similar veteran support services exist. Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 3 of 4 Page 48 of 1055 95 96 Section 3. Authorization. The Borough Mayor or his delegate is authorized 97 to take all actions necessary to enter into a new lease with Interior Alaska American 98 Legion Post 99 on an approximately two acre portion of Tract E of Grieme Farm 99 Subdivision within Section 19, T.4S., R.4E., F.M., as shown on attached Exhibit B, at a 100 rental rate of one dollar per year, for an initial term of four years, with one renewal option 101 of four years. 102 103 Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective at 5:00 p.m. on the 104 first Borough business day following its adoption. 105 106 ADOPTED THE DAY OF 2026. 107 108 109 110 Scott Crass 111 Presiding Officer 112 113 114 115 ATTEST: APPROVED: 116 117 Aparoved toy SSDP 118 April Trickey, MMC Jill S.'Dolan 119 Borough Clerk Borough Attorney Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 4 of 4 Page 49 of 1055Exhibit A Page 50 of 1055Exhibit B Approx. Location and Orientation Approx. 2 acres Page 51 of 1055 American Legion 1550 Charter Circle Anchorage, AK, 99508 To: American Legion State Convention, I am writing to express strong support for the Alaska American Legion and its upcoming State Convention. The American Legion continues to play a vital role in serving veterans, military families, and communities across Alaska. This annual gathering is an important opportunity to strengthen that mission. The work being done by the Alaska Chapters of the American Legion both at the state level and through local posts is deeply impactful. Initiatives such as the “Be the One” suicide prevention training demonstrate a clear commitment to addressing one of the most urgent challenges facing the veteran community. By equipping nearly one hundred community members with the tools to recognize and respond to veterans in crisis, the Legion is directly contributing to lifesaving efforts across the state. At the local level, posts like Interior Alaska Post 99 in Salcha exemplify the organization’s dedication. Their rapid membership growth and hands-on support for veterans - including connecting individuals to benefits, assisting with employment, helping families navigate loss, and providing essential medical equipment highlight the real, measurable difference the American Legion makes every day. The State Convention serves as a forum for coordination, leadership development, and collaboration among posts. It ensures that these efforts continue to grow, adapt, and reach more veterans and families in need. Supporting this convention is an investment in the continued strength and effectiveness of Alaska’s veteran support network. Thank you for your continued leadership and commitment to those who have served our country. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Nicholas J. Begich III Congressman for all Alaska Page 52 of 1055Page 53 of 1055Page 54 of 1055 Alaska Interior Delegation In Juneau In Fairbanks Alaska State Capitol Rm 7 1292 Sadler Way Ste 308 Juneau, AK 99801 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Phone: (907) 465-3719 Phone: (907) 451-2157 Honorable Grier Hopkins Mayor, Mayor of Fairbanks North Star Borough 907 Terminal Street Fairbanks, AK 99701 Dear Mayor Hopkins and Members of the Borough Assembly, The Alaska Interior Delegation wishes to voice our strong support for the Interior Alaska American Legion Post 99 and its application to lease Fairbanks North Star Borough land in Salcha. Alaska’s veterans and their families benefit tremendously from having a local place to gather. The American Legion Post 99 has consistently demonstrated leadership, service, and community commitment that make the post an invaluable asset to the Interior. Its local efforts, ranging from peer support and emergency assistance to community events and outreach, provide a vital network of stability and connection for those who have served our nation. The American Legion Post 99 plays a critical role in supporting veterans across a wide geographic area, as many veterans live in rural communities where access to critical services can be limited. This includes such rural communities as Salcha and Harding Lake. The ability for the American Legion Post 99 to secure a long-term lease would allow the post to expand its operations, strengthen its community presence, and continue offering a safe and reliable gathering place for veterans and their families. The organization is a responsible steward and strong community partner, and its proposed land use aligns with Fairbanks North Star Borough’s goals of supporting local service organizations that contribute to public well-being. The land at Grieme Road and the Richardson Highway is the perfect place for the organization to put down roots and provides a central location for many veterans. The Alaska Interior Delegation recognizes the importance of empowering veteran led organizations that directly improve the quality of life in Alaska’s communities. American Legion Post 99’s request represents an opportunity to support a mission driven group that consistently gives back and enhances the fabric of the Salcha region. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Our offices are ready to assist should you need any additional information. Sincerely, Interior Delegation Alaska State Legislature Page 55 of 1055 Alaska State Legislature – Interior Delegation Page 2 Representative McCabe – HD 30 Representative Dibert – HD 31 Representative Stapp – HD 32 Representative Prax – HD 33 Representative Tomaszewski – HD 34 Representative Carrick– HD 35 Representative Schwanke – HD 36 Senator George Rauscher – SD O Senator Myers – SD Q Senator Cronk – SD R Page 56 of 1055Page 57 of 1055 Fairbanks North Star Borough Emergency Operations Department 3175 Peger Road EmergencyManagement@fnsb.gov (907) 459-1481 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Crass Presiding Officer Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly THROUGH: Grier Hopkins, Borough Mayor FROM: Luke Butcher Director Emergency Operations Department DATE: August 27, 2026 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2026-24. Adopting the Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan as the Official Hazard Mitigation Plan of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Attached for your consideration is a resolution adopting the Fairbanks North Star Borough Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) as the Borough's official Hazard Mitigation Plan, pending approval by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The plan was developed through a collaborative effort involving the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the City of Fairbanks, the City of North Pole, state and federal partners, stakeholders, and the public. Adoption of the plan satisfies the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and ensures the Borough remains eligible for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant funding. The MJ-HMP provides a comprehensive assessment of the natural hazards facing our community, identifies vulnerabilities to people, property, critical infrastructure, and essential services, and establishes prioritized mitigation actions to reduce long-term risk. It also provides a framework for integrating hazard mitigation into Borough planning, capital improvement projects, and emergency management activities while promoting community resilience and strengthening regional coordination among participating jurisdictions. I urge your approval of this resolution Physical: 907 Terminal St. Fairbanks, AK 99701 Website: fnsb.gov Mailing: PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707 Page 58 of 1055 1 By: Grier Hopkins, Mayor 2 Introduced: August 13, 2026 3 4 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH 5 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2026 – 24 7 8 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 9 AS THE OFFICIAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN OF THE BOROUGH 10 11 WHEREAS, The Fairbanks North Star Borough (Borough) is vulnerable to 12 damages from natural hazard events which pose a threat to public health and safety, and 13 could result in property loss and economic hardship; and 14 15 WHEREAS, The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (“MJ-HMP”) was 16 developed through a coordinated, multi-jurisdictional planning process involving the 17 Borough, City of Fairbanks, City of North Pole, State of Alaska, and partner stakeholders 18 to address shared risks and regional mitigation priorities; and 19 20 WHEREAS, The MJ-HMP recommends actions to protect people and 21 property from natural hazards, reduce future disaster impacts, and reinforce the 22 Borough’s leadership in emergency preparedness; and 23 24 WHEREAS, The MJ-HMP is based on a comprehensive risk assessment that 25 identifies hazards, evaluates vulnerabilities of population, infrastructure, and critical 26 facilities, and prioritizes mitigation actions to reduce long-term risk; and 27 28 WHEREAS, The MJ-HMP includes a Mitigation Action Plan that identifies 29 prioritized, cost-effective actions and projects to reduce risk and is intended to guide 30 implementation through capital improvements, land use planning, and interagency 31 coordination; and 32 Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 1 of 4 Page 59 of 105533 WHEREAS, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) 34 mandates the creation of hazard mitigation plans to coordinate pre- and post-disaster 35 mitigation planning efforts and funding; and 36 37 WHEREAS, The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390) (DMA 2000) 38 and associated Federal regulations published under 44 CFR Part 201 require the Borough 39 to formally adopt a Hazard Mitigation Plan subject to the approval of FEMA to be eligible 40 for federal hazard mitigation projects and activities funds; and 41 42 WHEREAS, The MJ-HMP includes a plan maintenance process requiring 43 regular monitoring, annual review, and formal updates at least every five years to reflect 44 changing conditions and maintain compliance with federal requirements; and 45 46 WHEREAS, Public meetings and surveys were conducted during the 47 formation and adoption of the MJ-HMP to solicit public opinion and disseminate 48 information; and 49 50 WHEREAS, The MJ-HMP is a technical and non-binding, non-regulatory 51 document; and 52 53 WHEREAS, The MJ-HMP is intended to be integrated into other Borough 54 plans, programs, and regulatory mechanisms, including capital improvement planning, 55 land use and development review, and emergency management operations; and 56 57 WHEREAS, The MJ-HMP prioritizes the protection of critical infrastructure, 58 essential services, and interconnected lifeline systems to reduce disruption and support 59 continuity of operations during hazard events; and 60 Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 2 of 4 Page 60 of 105561 WHEREAS, Implementation of the MJ-HMP will reduce long-term economic 62 impacts, support community resilience, and promote sustainable development within the 63 Borough. 64 65 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Assembly of the Fairbanks 66 North Star Borough hereby adopts the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan as the 67 official Hazard Mitigation Plan of the Fairbanks North Star Borough, pending approval by 68 FEMA. 69 70 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Fairbanks North Star Borough will work 71 with the MJ-HMP Planning Team, to include staff from the City of Fairbanks and the City 72 of North Pole, to lead annual efforts to make administrative and statistical updates to the 73 MJ-HMP as indicated in the Plan Maintenance and Update Process Section (Section 11.9). 74 75 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team will 76 provide an annual report on the progress toward implementing mitigation actions; 77 identification of mitigation actions that may require revision, deferral, or removal; 78 changes in risk, hazard conditions, or vulnerability; and changes in regulatory, fiscal, or 79 administrative capability, to the Mayor and Assembly following the annual review 80 meeting. 81 82 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Assembly of the Fairbanks North Star 83 Borough will review, revise, and re-adopt the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 84 (MJ-HMP), in its entirety, no less frequently than every five years or when determined by 85 the State of Alaska or the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 86 87 ADOPTED THE _____ DAY OF __________ 2026. 88 89 90 _____________________________ 91 Scott Crass 92 Presiding Officer Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX Page 3 of 4 Page 61 of 1055 93 94 95 96 ATTEST: PROVED: 98 97 vitnee we 99 April Trickey, MMC Jill S. Dolan ] 100 Borough Clerk Borough Attorney Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RESOLUTION NO, 2026-XX Page 4 of 4 Page 62 of 1055 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Fairbanks North Star Borough City of Fairbanks City of North Pole Prepared by FNSB Emergency Management Page 63 of 1055 Fairbanks North Star Borough City of Fairbanks City of North Pole Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) Update Department of Emergency Operations PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707-1267 (907) 459-1481 August _, 2026 Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough Grier Hopkins Mayor, City of Fairbanks Mindy O’Neall Mayor, City of North Pole Larry Terch III Emergency Operations Director (FNSB) Luke Butcher Emergency Manager / Plan Point of Contact Nancy Durham Emergency Management Staff Juanita Frazier Kim Streeter Boston Thomas This plan was prepared in coordination with participating jurisdictions, stakeholders, and partner agencies. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan ii Page 64 of 1055 i: Acceptance Letter from FEMA Region 10 INSERT FEMA ACCEPTANCE LETTER HERE FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan iii Page 65 of 1055 ii: FNSB Resolution No. 2026-_ INSERT FNSB RESOLUTION PAGE 1 HERE FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan iv Page 66 of 1055 INSERT FNSB RESOLUTION PAGE 2 HERE FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan v Page 67 of 1055 iii: City of Fairbanks Resolution No. _ INSERT CITY OF FAIRBANKS RESOLUTION PAGE 1 HERE FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan vi Page 68 of 1055 INSERT CITY OF FAIRBANKS RESOLUTION PAGE 2 HERE FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan vii Page 69 of 1055 iv: City of North Pole Resolution No. _ INSERT CITY OF NORTH POLE RESOLUTION PAGE 1 HERE FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan viii Page 70 of 1055 INSERT CITY OF NORTH POLE RESOLUTION PAGE 2 HERE FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan ix Page 71 of 1055 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 MJ-HMP Update Organization ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Planning Process Summary ...................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.2 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment .......................................................... 1-3 1.1.3 Mitigation Strategies ................................................................................................. 1-3 1.1.4 Plan Review, Evaluation, and Implementation ..................................................... 1-4 1.1.5 Plan Adoption ............................................................................................................. 1-5 2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2-17 2.1 Hazard Mitigation Planning Requirements .................................................................. 2-18 2.2 Planning Process and Methodology ............................................................................. 2-18 2.3 Plan Development Resources ....................................................................................... 2-26 2.4 Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 2-29 2.4.1 Public Notification .................................................................................................... 2-29 2.4.2 Stakeholder Engagement ....................................................................................... 2-30 2.4.3 Surveys and Public Input Tools ............................................................................. 2-30 2.4.4 Public Review of Draft Plan .................................................................................... 2-31 2.4.5 Previous Plan Outreach (2021 Update) ............................................................... 2-32 2.4.6 Ongoing Public Involvement .................................................................................. 2-33 2.5 Review, Evaluation, and Implementation of the 2021 MJ-HMP ............................... 2-33 2.6 Plan Adoption and Approval .......................................................................................... 2-35 2.6.1 Plan Integration ....................................................................................................... 2-36 2.7 Plan Monitoring, Evaluation, and Updating ................................................................. 2-39 2.7.1 Arctic Urban Risks and Adaptations Project ........................................................ 2-42 3. Community Profile ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 History ................................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2 Alaska Native Corporations ............................................................................................. 3-6 3.3 Socioeconomics and Development Trends ................................................................... 3-9 3.3.1 Housing Development Trends ............................................................................... 3-10 3.3.2 Economy ................................................................................................................... 3-13 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan x Page 72 of 1055 3.3.3 Military....................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.3.4 K-12 Education ........................................................................................................ 3-15 3.3.5 Post-Secondary and Research Institutions .......................................................... 3-16 3.3.6 Research and Development ................................................................................... 3-17 3.3.7 Agriculture ................................................................................................................ 3-18 3.3.8 Forestry ..................................................................................................................... 3-19 3.3.9 Mining ........................................................................................................................ 3-20 3.3.10 Oil and Gas Development ...................................................................................... 3-23 3.3.11 Tourism ..................................................................................................................... 3-24 3.4 Changes in Development and Effects on Vulnerability (Since 2021 Update) ........ 3-25 3.5 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 3-26 3.5.1 Air Transportation ................................................................................................... 3-26 3.5.2 Rail Transportation .................................................................................................. 3-28 3.5.3 Road Transportation ............................................................................................... 3-28 3.6 Electric and Utilities ........................................................................................................ 3-30 3.7 Health Care ...................................................................................................................... 3-32 3.8 Emergency Services ....................................................................................................... 3-34 4. Risk Assessment and Hazard Identification .......................................................... 4-1 4.1 Components of Risk Assessment ................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Future Conditions and Changing Risks .......................................................................... 4-2 4.3 Hazard Identification - “What kind of natural hazards affect the Borough?” .......... 4-3 4.4 Profile Hazard Events - “How bad can it get?” ............................................................ 4-5 4.5 Inventory Assets - “What is at risk?” ............................................................................. 4-7 4.5.1 Population ................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.5.2 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................... 4-19 4.5.3 Residential Property ................................................................................................ 4-21 4.6 Vulnerability and Loss Estimation ................................................................................ 4-23 4.6.1 Vulnerabilities to Wildfire – Wildland Fire ............................................................ 4-24 4.6.2 Vulnerabilities to Wildfire – Urban Conflagration (Structure-to-Structure Fire) 4- 29 4.6.3 Vulnerabilities to Severe Weather......................................................................... 4-31 4.6.4 Vulnerabilities to Flooding ...................................................................................... 4-34 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xi Page 73 of 1055 4.6.5 Vulnerabilities to Flooding – High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPDs) ............... 4-37 4.6.6 Vulnerabilities to Earthquake - Ground Motion ................................................... 4-38 4.6.7 Vulnerabilities to Earthquake - Liquefaction ....................................................... 4-41 4.6.8 Vulnerabilities to Ground Failure (Landslides, Subsidence, Slope Failure) ..... 4-44 4.6.9 Vulnerabilities to Ground Failure - Cryosphere (Permafrost Degradation, Thaw Settlement) ............................................................................................................................. 4-47 5. Wildfire: Wildland Fire and Urban Conflagration (Structure-to-Structure) Hazard Profile ............................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Nature and Location ......................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2 Historical Occurrence ....................................................................................................... 5-6 5.3 Extent ............................................................................................................................... 5-11 5.4 Possible Impacts from Future Events ........................................................................... 5-12 5.5 Recurrence Probability of Future Events ..................................................................... 5-14 5.6 Wildfire Hazard Actions .................................................................................................. 5-20 5.6.1 Wildfire and Urban Conflagration - Current Mitigation Actions and Authorities 5- 20 5.6.2 Wildfire and Urban Conflagration Hazard Mitigation Successes ....................... 5-23 5.6.3 City of Fairbanks ...................................................................................................... 5-25 5.6.4 City of North Pole .................................................................................................... 5-26 5.6.5 FNSB .......................................................................................................................... 5-26 5.7 Fire Protection Services and Urban Conflagration Response Context .................... 5-27 6. Severe Weather Hazard Profile................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Nature and Location ......................................................................................................... 6-2 6.2 Historical Occurrences ...................................................................................................... 6-5 6.2.1 Extreme Cold .............................................................................................................. 6-6 6.2.2 Heavy Snow ............................................................................................................... 6-9 6.2.3 Freezing Rain ........................................................................................................... 6-10 6.2.4 Lightning ................................................................................................................... 6-14 6.2.5 High Winds ............................................................................................................... 6-15 6.2.6 Wind Chill .................................................................................................................. 6-17 6.3 Extent ............................................................................................................................... 6-18 6.4 Possible Impacts from Future Events ........................................................................... 6-19 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xii Page 74 of 1055 6.5 Recurrence Probability of Future Events ...................................................................... 6-21 6.5.1 Fairbanks Climate and Weather Extremes .......................................................... 6-22 6.6 Climate-Informed Risk Considerations ........................................................................ 6-27 6.7 Existing Programs and Capabilities .............................................................................. 6-29 6.7.1 StormReady® .......................................................................................................... 6-30 6.7.2 Weather-Ready Nation (WRN) Ambassador ....................................................... 6-31 7. Flood Hazard Profile........................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Nature and Location ......................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1 Riverine Flooding (Snowmelt and Rainfall) ........................................................... 7-1 7.1.2 Ice Jam Flooding ....................................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.3 Pluvial (Ponding) Flooding ....................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.4 Winter and Aufeis Flooding ...................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.5 Streambank Erosion and Channel Migration ......................................................... 7-2 7.2 Historical Occurrence ....................................................................................................... 7-4 7.2.1 Early Flooding and Ice Jam Events (1905–1947) ................................................. 7-5 7.2.2 Major Floods and Early River Engineering (1938–1966) ..................................... 7-5 7.2.3 Construction of the Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project (1968–1979) .... 7-6 7.2.4 Post-Project Flood Events (1992–Present) ............................................................ 7-6 7.3 Extent ................................................................................................................................. 7-8 7.4 Possible Impacts from Future Events ............................................................................ 7-9 7.5 Recurrence Probability of Future Events ..................................................................... 7-11 7.6 NFIP Participation ........................................................................................................... 7-13 7.6.1 Repetitive Loss Properties ...................................................................................... 7-15 7.6.2 Floodplain Management ......................................................................................... 7-16 7.6.3 High Hazard Potential Dams and Flood Control Structures .............................. 7-16 7.7 Long-Term Mitigation Projects ..................................................................................... 7-17 7.7.1 Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project ............................................................ 7-17 7.7.2 Floodplain Regulations (Title 15) .......................................................................... 7-18 7.7.3 Public Outreach and Risk Awareness ................................................................... 7-18 7.7.4 Flood Mapping, Modeling, and Data Improvements .......................................... 7-19 7.8 Recent Letter of Map Revisions (LOMR) and Flood Studies..................................... 7-19 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xiii Page 75 of 1055 8. Seismic Event Hazard Profile ....................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Nature and Location ......................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 Historical Occurrence ....................................................................................................... 8-5 8.2.1 Early and Mid-20th Century Earthquakes .............................................................. 8-6 8.2.2 Seismic Activity and Earthquake Swarms .............................................................. 8-6 8.2.3 The 2002 Denali Fault Earthquake ......................................................................... 8-7 8.2.4 Recent Earthquakes (2014–Present) ...................................................................... 8-7 8.3 Extent ............................................................................................................................... 8-10 8.4 Possible Impacts from Future Events .......................................................................... 8-10 8.5 Recurrence Probability of Future Events...................................................................... 8-12 8.6 Existing Seismic Hazard Actions ................................................................................... 8-13 8.6.1 City of Fairbanks ...................................................................................................... 8-14 8.6.2 City of North Pole .................................................................................................... 8-14 8.7 Future Seismic Mitigation Actions ................................................................................ 8-15 9. Ground Failure Profile (Including Cryosphere) .................................................... 9-1 9.1 Nature and Location ......................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.1 Ground Failure Processes ......................................................................................... 9-2 9.1.2 Cryosphere-Related Ground Failure ....................................................................... 9-4 9.1.3 Hillside Erosion and Loess-Related Hazards .......................................................... 9-6 9.1.4 Liquefaction Susceptibility ........................................................................................ 9-7 9.2 Historical Occurrences ..................................................................................................... 9-9 9.2.1 Landslides and Slope Failures ................................................................................. 9-9 9.2.2 LiDAR-Identified Landslides ................................................................................... 9-10 9.2.3 Permafrost Degradation and Cryosphere Impacts ............................................. 9-10 9.2.4 Documented Sinkholes and Subsidence Events ................................................. 9-11 9.2.5 Hillside Erosion......................................................................................................... 9-12 9.3 Extent ............................................................................................................................... 9-13 9.4 Possible Impacts from Future Events .......................................................................... 9-13 9.5 Recurrence Probability of Future Events ..................................................................... 9-15 10. Mitigation Strategy .................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Mitigation Strategy and Overview ............................................................................ 10-1 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xiv Page 76 of 1055 10.2 Capability Assessment ................................................................................................ 10-3 10.2.1 Purpose and Methodology ..................................................................................... 10-3 10.2.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities ........................................................... 10-4 10.2.3 Legal and Regulatory Capabilities ......................................................................... 10-5 10.2.4 Fiscal Capabilities .................................................................................................... 10-7 10.2.5 Interagency Coordination Capabilities ................................................................. 10-8 10.2.6 Capability Summary ................................................................................................ 10-9 10.3 Mitigation Project and Funding Process ................................................................ 10-10 10.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 10-10 10.3.2 Project Identification ............................................................................................. 10-11 10.3.3 Project Evaluation and Prioritization ................................................................... 10-12 10.3.4 Funding Sources .................................................................................................... 10-12 10.3.5 Implementation and Monitoring .......................................................................... 10-13 10.3.6 Continuous Process ............................................................................................... 10-14 10.4 2021 MJ-HMP Implementation Progress ............................................................... 10-15 10.4.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 10-15 10.4.2 Summary of Progress Since 2021 ....................................................................... 10-15 10.4.3 Status of 2021 Mitigation Actions ....................................................................... 10-18 10.4.4 Lessons Learned .................................................................................................... 10-19 10.4.5 Relationship to the Updated Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) ............................. 10-20 10.5 MJ-HMP Goals ............................................................................................................ 10-21 10.5.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 10-21 10.5.2 Relationship to Previous Plans ............................................................................ 10-22 10.5.3 Updated Mitigation Goals ..................................................................................... 10-22 10.5.4 Implementation of Goals ...................................................................................... 10-25 11. Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) ................................................................................ 11-1 11.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 11-1 11.2 Relationship to the 2021 MJ-HMP ............................................................................ 11-1 11.3 Development of the MAP ........................................................................................... 11-2 11.4 Organization of the MAP ............................................................................................ 11-3 11.4.1 MAP Methodology / Approach Paragraph ............................................................ 11-3 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xv Page 77 of 1055 11.4.2 MAP Notes (Applies to Tables 11-1 through 11-7) ............................................ 11-4 11.5 Prioritization and Implementation Considerations ............................................... 11-17 11.6 Responsibility for Implementation .......................................................................... 11-18 11.7 Monitoring and Maintenance ................................................................................... 11-19 11.8 Role in Long-Term Mitigation Strategy .................................................................. 11-19 11.9 Plan Maintenance and Update Process .................................................................. 11-20 11.9.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 11-20 11.9.2 Responsibility for Plan Maintenance ................................................................... 11-20 11.9.3 Annual Review Process ......................................................................................... 11-21 Plan Maintenance Documentation and Tracking ............................................................ 11-21 11.9.4 MAP Updates .......................................................................................................... 11-22 11.9.5 Plan Amendment Procedures .............................................................................. 11-22 11.9.6 Five-Year Plan Update .......................................................................................... 11-23 11.9.7 Public Involvement ................................................................................................ 11-24 11.9.8 Continued Applicability ......................................................................................... 11-24 12. List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................... 12-1 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xvi Page 78 of 1055 List of Figures Acceptance Letter from FEMA Region 10 ....................................................................... iii FNSB Resolution No. 2026-_ ......................................................................................... iv City of Fairbanks Resolution No. _ ................................................................................. vi City of North Pole Resolution No. _ ............................................................................... viii Figure 2-1: Hazard Mitigation Plan Approval and Adoption Process .............................. 2-36 Figure 2-2: Five-Year Hazard Mitigation Planning Cycle ............................................... 2-41 Figure 3-1: Map of FNSB Vicinity ................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-2: Single-Family FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 ................................... 3-12 Figure 3-3: Multi-Family FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 ..................................... 3-12 Figure 3-4: Total Family FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 .................................... 3-13 Figure 3-5: Map of Tanana Valley Forest .................................................................... 3-20 Figure 4-1: Map of CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) - Socioeconomic Status (2022) ..................................................................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-2: Map of CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) - Household Composition and Disability (2022) ................................................................................................ 4-11 Figure 4-3: Map of CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) - Minority Status and Language (2022) ...................................................................................................... 4-12 Figure 4-4: Map of CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) – Housing Type and Transportation (2022) .............................................................................................. 4-13 Figure 4-5: The Long-Term Services and Supports Continuum of Care for Seniors ........ 4-17 Figure 4-6: Map of FNSB Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI) Risk Score ............................ 4-25 Figure 4-7: Map of FNSB Annualized Frequency Winter Weather Risk Score ................. 4-32 Figure 4-8: Map of FNSB FEMA Flood Hazard Risk Score ............................................. 4-36 Figure 4-9: Map of FNSB Seismic Hazard Risk Score ................................................... 4-39 Figure 4-10: Map of FNSB Ground Failure Hazard Risk Score....................................... 4-46 Figure 5-1: Large Wildfire Activity in Interior Alaska, August 2009 ................................. 5-1 Figure 5-2: Map of FNSB Fire History ........................................................................... 5-3 Figure 5-3: Map of FNSB Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI) .............................................. 5-4 Figure 5-4: Map of Wildland Fire Management within the FNSB ..................................... 5-5 Figure 5-5: Wildfire Smoke in Fairbanks. ...................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5-6: Smoke Vortex (“Smokenado”) Observed South of Fairbanks, June 1, 2020. 5-10 Figure 5-7: Alaska Wildfire Number of Fires and Acres Burned from 1950 to 2025. ....... 5-15 Figure 5-8: Map of FNSB Wildland Fire Zones of Concern – Western Population ........... 5-18 Figure 5-9: Map of FNSB Wildland Fire Zones of Concern – Eastern Population ............ 5-19 Figure 6-1: Power Outage for over Thirty‐Six Hours ..................................................... 6-2 Figure 6-2: New Daily High Temperature Record in Fairbanks, August 3, 2021 ............... 6-4 Figure 6-3: Mean Annual Temperature Trends – FNSB .................................................. 6-6 Figure 6-4: 2025-2026 All-Time Record Coldest December-March in Fairbanks ............... 6-8 Figure 6-5: Freezing Rain and Ice Accretion in Interior Alaska ..................................... 6-13 Figure 6-6: Annual Average Temperature – Fairbanks Area ......................................... 6-24 Figure 6-7: Average Monthly Temperature – Fairbanks ............................................... 6-24 Figure 6-8: Five-Year Running Precipitation Departure – FNSB .................................... 6-25 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xvii Page 79 of 1055 Figure 6-9: December 1934 Climate Data – Fairbanks ................................................ 6-26 Figure 6-10: Winter Season Climate Statistics – Fairbanks (2025-2026) ....................... 6-27 Figure 6-11: Latest Dates Temperature Above 32°F – Fairbanks Area .......................... 6-29 Figure 7-1: Map of Flood Hazard Extent - Borough ....................................................... 7-3 Figure 7-2: Map of Flood Hazard Extent - Urban Core ................................................... 7-4 Figure 7-3: Ice Jam on the Chena River near Front Street, Downtown Fairbanks (April 23, 2020) ........................................................................................................................ 7-8 Figure 7-4: Average Monthly Precipitation for Fairbanks, Alaska .................................. 7-13 Figure 8-1: Map of Seismic Hazard Intensity – FNSB (Modified Mercalli Intensity) .......... 8-4 Figure 8-2: Map of Seismic Hazard Intensity with Population and Structure Overlay - FNSB ................................................................................................................................. 8-5 Figure 8-3: Map of Historical Regional Seismicity .......................................................... 8-9 Figure 9-1: Landslide Classifications ............................................................................ 9-3 Figure 9-2: Map of Ground Ice Hazard ......................................................................... 9-5 Figure 9-3: Map of Liquefaction Susceptibility .............................................................. 9-8 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xviii Page 80 of 1055 List of Tables Table 2-1: MJ-HMP Update Planning Team ................................................................ 2-19 Table 2-2: Jurisdiction Participation ........................................................................... 2-20 Table 2-3: Key Stakeholder Organizations .................................................................. 2-23 Table 2-4: Subject Matter Experts ............................................................................. 2-24 Table 2-5: Existing Plans and Codes .......................................................................... 2-37 Table 3-1: Incorporated Cities, Census‐Designated Places (CDP), and Recognized Communities in the FNSB ........................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2: Community Administration Contacts ............................................................ 3-8 Table 3-3: Single-Family FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 .................................... 3-10 Table 3-4: Multi-Family FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 ...................................... 3-11 Table 3-5: Total FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 ................................................ 3-11 Table 3-6: Fairbanks International Airport Statistics (2019–2024) ................................ 3-27 Table 4-1: Hazard Probability Summary ....................................................................... 4-6 Table 4-2: Hazard Frequency and Extent Summary ...................................................... 4-7 Table 4-3: Key Demographic Trends – Older Adult Population (Estimated) ................... 4-15 Table 4-4: Wildfire Zones of Concern by Hazard Level ................................................ 4-27 Table 4-5: Critical Facilities by Fire Risk Category ....................................................... 4-27 Table 4-6: High-Risk Critical Infrastructure (Score ≥ 9) .............................................. 4-28 Table 4-7: Wildfire Hazard Zones (Map Interpretation) ............................................... 4-28 Table 4-8: Urban Conflagration Vulnerability Factors .................................................. 4-30 Table 4-9: High-Risk Critical Facilities – Severe Weather (Score ≥ 9) ........................... 4-33 Table 4-10: High-Risk Critical Facilities – Earthquake Ground Motion (Score = 12) ....... 4-40 Table 4-11: High-Risk Infrastructure Vulnerable to Liquefaction Effects ....................... 4-43 Table 4-12: High-Risk Facilities – Ground Failure (Highest Scores) .............................. 4-47 Table 8-1: Earthquake Intensity .................................................................................. 8-3 Table 10-1: Summary of Mitigation Strategy and Guiding Principles ............................. 10-2 Table 10-2: Financial Resources ................................................................................ 10-7 Table 10-3: Capability Assessment Summary ........................................................... 10-10 Table 10-4: Mitigation Project and Funding Process .................................................. 10-14 Table 10-5: Summary of Mitigation Implementation Progress Since 2021 .................. 10-17 Table 10-6: 2021 MJ-HMP Implementation Progress Categories ................................ 10-21 Table 10-7: MJ-HMP Goals and Focus Areas ............................................................. 10-26 Table 11-1: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Actions ............................................................... 11-6 Table 11-2: Wildfire Mitigation Actions (Wildland Fire and Urban Conflagration (Structure- to-Structure)) ........................................................................................................... 11-8 Table 11-3: Severe Weather Mitigation Actions .......................................................... 11-9 Table 11-4: Flood Mitigation Actions ........................................................................ 11-11 Table 11-5: Seismic Mitigation Actions (Earthquake) ................................................. 11-13 Table 11-6: Ground Failure Mitigation Actions (includes Cryosphere) ......................... 11-14 Table 11-7: Infrastructure, Lifelines, and Supply Chain Mitigation Actions .................. 11-15 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan xix Page 81 of 1055 1. Executive Summary The 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) Update was developed to meet the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM). The plan serves the communities of the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB/Borough), the City of Fairbanks, and the City of North Pole and establishes coordinated, long-term strategies to reduce risk from natural hazards. Hazard mitigation planning is a proactive process that identifies risks, assesses vulnerabilities, and prioritizes actions to reduce loss of life, property damage, and disruption to essential services. This update builds on the original 2014 MJ-HMP and the 2021 update, incorporating new data, stakeholder input, and observed changes in hazards, infrastructure, and community conditions since the prior plan cycle. The overall purpose of the MJ-HMP is to:  Protect public safety and prevent loss of life  Reduce damage to existing and future development  Protect the Borough’s economic, cultural, and environmental assets  Improve the resilience and continuity of infrastructure and essential services  Reduce the costs and impacts of disaster response and recovery  Support broader community goals, including infrastructure investment, land-use planning, and economic resilience 1.1 MJ-HMP Update Organization The 2026 MJ-HMP Update begins with an overview of the planning process, followed by a community profile and comprehensive risk assessment. Individual hazard profile chapters describe each hazard’s characteristics, historical occurrence, future probability, and potential impacts. The plan addresses the Borough’s primary natural hazards:  Wildfire (wildland and urban conflagration) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-1 Page 82 of 1055  Severe weather  Flooding  Seismic events  Ground failure (including cryosphere-related hazards such as permafrost degradation) Hazard profiles reflect current scientific understanding and updated datasets, including the integration of cryosphere hazards into ground failure to better represent the underlying processes affecting the Borough. Chapter 10 presents the mitigation strategy, including existing capabilities, resources, funding mechanisms, progress since the 2021 update, and mitigation goals. Chapter 11 presents the Mitigation Action Plan. 1.1.1 Planning Process Summary The MJ-HMP Update was developed through a multi-jurisdictional planning process coordinated by FNSB Emergency Management in partnership with the Cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, DHS&EM, and a wide range of stakeholders. The planning team incorporated:  Subject matter expertise from local, state, and federal agencies  Technical data from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, State agencies, and federal partners  Public input gathered through surveys, outreach events, public meetings, and a formal public review period This update emphasizes changes in hazard conditions, infrastructure systems, and development patterns since 2014, ensuring the plan reflects current risks and community priorities. The plan will be reviewed annually and fully updated every five years in accordance with FEMA requirements. Public and stakeholder input, including a formal 30-day public comment period, directly informed updates to the mitigation strategy and risk assessment (see Section 2.4 and Appendix D). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-2 Page 83 of 1055 1.1.2 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment The planning team evaluated previously identified hazards and confirmed that the following remain the primary natural threats to the Borough:  Wildfire (wildland and urban conflagration)  Severe weather  Flooding  Seismic events  Ground failure (including landslides, erosion, subsidence, and permafrost degradation) These hazards reflect the environmental conditions of Interior Alaska, including boreal forest fire regimes, extreme weather variability, riverine flooding, seismic activity, and widespread discontinuous permafrost. The plan also identifies additional non-natural hazards, such as cyber incidents, hazardous materials releases, and long-term power outages, to support broader resilience planning, although FEMA risk assessment requirements focus on natural hazards. The risk assessment includes:  Historical hazard occurrences  Geographic distribution of hazards  Recurrence probability  Vulnerability of population, infrastructure, and critical facilities This analysis informs mitigation priorities and supports data-driven decision-making. 1.1.3 Mitigation Strategies The MJ-HMP Update documents existing capabilities, regulations, programs, and resources available to each jurisdiction to reduce hazard risk. Based on this assessment, the planning team developed:  6 updated mitigation goals FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-3 Page 84 of 1055  28 mitigation actions addressing multiple hazards and infrastructure systems The Mitigation Action Plan identifies:  Responsible agencies  Implementation timelines  Funding considerations  Prioritization criteria (life safety, feasibility, cost, and multi-hazard benefits) Mitigation strategies emphasize:  Protection of critical infrastructure (roads, utilities, public facilities)  Improved emergency access and continuity of services  Risk-informed land use and development practices  Coordination across jurisdictions and infrastructure partners Mitigation actions will be integrated into capital improvement plans, land-use regulations, emergency response planning, and other local planning efforts. 1.1.4 Plan Review, Evaluation, and Implementation This update reflects:  Changes in development and infrastructure from 2014–2026  Progress made on prior mitigation actions  Updated hazard data and stakeholder priorities The Borough and participating jurisdictions will:  Conduct annual reviews of mitigation actions  Track progress and update priorities  Incorporate new data and lessons learned FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-4 Page 85 of 1055 A full update will be completed every five years to maintain FEMA approval and eligibility for Hazard Mitigation Assistance funding. 1.1.5 Plan Adoption The MJ-HMP Update was adopted by:  The Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly  The City of Fairbanks  The City of North Pole Adoption ensures compliance with Alaska Statutes and FEMA requirements and enables continued access to federal and state mitigation funding programs. Together, these strategies position the Fairbanks North Star Borough and participating jurisdictions to proactively reduce risk, protect critical infrastructure, and enhance long-term community resilience. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 1-5 Page 86 of 1055 2. Introduction Hazard mitigation planning seeks to minimize the impacts of a natural disaster before it occurs by identifying and profiling local hazards, assessing vulnerability of communities and facilities, and identifying mitigation actions to reduce risk to life and property. Hazard mitigation includes sustained actions that reduce or eliminate long-term risk from natural hazards and their effects.1 Mitigation actions may include long-term capital improvement projects, policy changes to ordinances or existing plans, and public education and outreach. The goal of these actions is the long-term protection of people, property, and critical infrastructure. This 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) Update is jointly prepared by multiple jurisdictions within the boundaries of the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB/Borough). The plan profiles five natural hazards: wildfire (wildland and urban conflagration), severe weather, flooding, seismic activity, and ground failure (including cryosphere-related processes). It assesses community vulnerability and risk associated with these hazards and presents mitigation strategies to reduce identified risks. The overarching goal of this MJ-HMP Update is to reduce loss of life and property due to natural hazards and to increase community resilience through coordinated, long-term risk reduction strategies. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved hazard mitigation plan enables the Borough and participating jurisdictions to access federal and state funding and technical assistance for mitigation activities. FEMA requires an approved mitigation plan as a condition for Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) grant programs.2 The benefits of developing a multi-jurisdictional plan include:  Improved communication and coordination among jurisdictions and other regional partners  Comprehensive mitigation approaches addressing shared risks  Resource and cost-sharing to improve efficiency and reduce duplication 1 FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Planning for Local Governments: mitigation defined as sustained action to reduce long- term risk. 2 FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance eligibility requirements (approved plan prerequisite). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-17 Page 87 of 1055  Clear organizational structure and defined responsibilities across participating jurisdictions 2.1 Hazard Mitigation Planning Requirements This MJ-HMP Update was prepared in coordination with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) to meet the planning requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). This Federal law establishes mitigation planning requirements for state and local governments as a condition of receiving federal mitigation funding.3 FEMA’s HMA programs provide funding for mitigation planning and project implementation intended to reduce long-term disaster risk. These programs include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program (now largely replaced by the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program), and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program.4 These programs present opportunities to implement mitigation actions identified in this plan while reducing future reliance on federal disaster assistance. FEMA defines mitigation as actions that break the cycle of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated losses.5 In addition to meeting the DMA 2000 requirements, this plan also addresses the Local Flood Mitigation Plan requirements of the FMA grant program. The goal of the FMA grant program is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk of flood damage to structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), with particular emphasis on repetitive loss (RL) and severe repetitive loss (SRL) properties.6 2.2 Planning Process and Methodology As of January 2013, the FNSB did not have an official Hazard Mitigation Plan. Because the Borough, the City of Fairbanks, and the City of North Pole are all subject to natural hazard risk, a MJ-HMP was developed and adopted by resolution in 2014. FEMA requires local hazard mitigation plans to be reviewed and updated every five years in order to remain eligible for Hazard Mitigation Assistance funding.7 The first update to the 3 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390). 4 FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Programs overview. 5 FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Programs overview. 6 FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) / NFIP purpose (repetitive loss reduction). 7 44 CFR §201.6 – Local mitigation plans must be reviewed, revised, and resubmitted for approval every five years. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-18 Page 88 of 1055 FNSB MJ-HMP was adopted in 2021. A planning team (Table 2-1) was established for this update and includes representatives from the Borough, the City of Fairbanks, and the City of North Pole. This team provided oversight, technical input, and coordination throughout the planning process, ensuring representation from all participating jurisdictions. Table 2-1: MJ-HMP Update Planning Team Name Organization FNSB – Emergency Manager, Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Nancy Durham Director, and Project Manager Luke Butcher FNSB – Director of Emergency Operations Iain Miller FNSB – Emergency Services Manager Kuba Grzeda FNSB – Chief of Staff Amy Gallaway FNSB – Deputy Chief of Staff Tom Hewitt FNSB – Special Assistant to the Mayor Kaitlin Wilson FNSB – Public Information Officer Juanita Frazier FNSB – Emergency Management Specialist Boston Thomas FNSB - Emergency Management Intern Colby Kusinitz FNSB – Former Emergency Management Coordinator Kim Streeter FNSB – Emergency Management Specialist / Former GIS Specialist Daniel Weatherly FNSB – Emergency Services GIS Tech Mike Sanders City of Fairbanks – Chief of Staff Andrew Coccaro City of Fairbanks – Fire Chief and Emergency Manager Chad Heineken City of North Pole – Fire Chief and Emergency Manager Table 2-1 Note: Jurisdiction Points of Contact are highlighted. In March 2024, the FNSB, in coordination with the Cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, expressed interest in a Hazard Mitigation Grant administered by the Alaska DHS&EM through FEMA’s HMGP to update the MJ-HMP. The application packet for all three jurisdictions was finalized and submitted to the State in May 2025. Subsequent federal government shutdowns and reductions in HMGP funding delayed the State’s ability to proceed with contracting for the update. In fall 2025, after it became clear that there was no defined timeline for funding availability and that no extension of the existing plan would be granted, the FNSB Emergency Management Division initiated the update internally, beginning in December 2025. The 2026 MJ-HMP Update was developed through a coordinated, multi-jurisdictional planning process led by the FNSB Emergency Management Division, with active participation from the City of Fairbanks, the City of North Pole, and Borough leadership. FNSB Emergency Management served as the lead agency and project manager, responsible for organizing FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-19 Page 89 of 1055 and facilitating all planning and Executive Group meetings, developing the project timeline, conducting stakeholder outreach and public engagement, administering and analyzing surveys, coordinating subject matter expert input, leading the GIS-based risk assessment and vulnerability analysis, and preparing all plan content, maps, and supporting materials. Participation from jurisdictional partners included regular attendance at Executive Group meetings, review of draft materials, and provision of technical, operational, and policy-level input. Representatives from the City of Fairbanks and City of North Pole contributed comments on hazards, vulnerabilities, and mitigation actions, supported public outreach events including open houses and stakeholder meetings, and participated in public engagement efforts. Borough staff and leadership further supported outreach, communications, and stakeholder coordination, including public meetings in North Pole, Fairbanks, and Ester, as well as engagement at community open houses. All participating jurisdictions provided ongoing feedback throughout the planning process and supported the development of mitigation strategies and the adoption of the plan, ensuring that the final MJ-HMP reflects shared priorities, local expertise, and a collaborative approach to hazard mitigation. Jurisdiction-specific participation activities are summarized in Table 2-2 and directly informed the mitigation strategy presented in Chapter 10. Table 2-2: Jurisdiction Participation Jurisdiction Representative Participation Activities Led and managed the entire MJ-HMP update process; coordinated and facilitated all planning and Executive Group meetings; developed project timeline; conducted stakeholder engagement and outreach activities; designed and distributed surveys and analyzed results; Nancy Durham, coordinated subject matter expert input; led risk Emergency FNSB assessment and mitigation strategy development; wrote Manager / and assembled the plan; coordinated GIS-based analysis Project Manager and integration of vulnerability data; oversaw map production; managed plan website and public information; developed outreach materials and presentations; presented plan to boards, commissions, and councils. Participated in Executive Group meetings; provided Kuba Grzeda, FNSB review, coordination support, and policy-level input on Chief of Staff plan development. Amy Gallaway, Participated in Executive Group meetings; attended Noel FNSB Deputy Chief of Wien Library open house; provided review and input on Staff plan development. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-20 Page 90 of 1055 Jurisdiction Representative Participation Activities Tom Hewitt, Participated in Executive Group meetings; provided input FNSB Special Assistant and support during plan development. to the Mayor Kaitlin Wilson, Participated in Executive Group meetings; supported Public public outreach efforts; attended North Pole public FNSB Information meeting and Ester open house; coordinated Officer communications and engagement activities. Participated in Executive Group meetings; provided detailed comments and policy input; assisted with Noel City of Mike Sanders, Wien Library open house; supported stakeholder Fairbanks Chief of Staff engagement by bringing a City Council member to the stakeholder meeting. Chief Andrew Participated in Executive Group meetings; provided Coccaro, Fire City of technical and operational comments; assisted with Noel Chief / Fairbanks Wien Library open house; contributed emergency Emergency management expertise to plan development. Manager Chief Chad Heineken, Fire Participated in Executive Group meetings; provided local City of North Chief / jurisdiction input and technical comments; contributed to Pole Emergency review of hazards, vulnerabilities, and mitigation actions. Manager City of North Mayor Larry Attended the North Pole public meeting; supported Pole Terch III, Mayor public engagement and community outreach efforts. Table 2-2 Notes: All Executive Group meetings included active discussion, review, and comment on plan components, with participating jurisdictions providing ongoing support for plan development and adoption. FNSB Emergency Management staff provided technical, analytical, and administrative support, including research, GIS analysis, vulnerability assessments, mapping, and meeting coordination. Jurisdiction participation reflects continuous engagement throughout the planning process, including meetings, outreach events, surveys, and formal review. In accordance with federal mitigation planning requirements, this MJ-HMP Update includes consideration of the 15 Census-Designated Places (CDPs) within the Borough. The plan incorporates information and strategies from existing federal, state, and local plans, as well as scientific data and technical studies from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, State of FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-21 Page 91 of 1055 Alaska agencies, and the United States Geological Survey (USGS), consistent with FEMA mitigation planning guidance.8 During the review of existing plans and supporting documentation, the planning team identified supply chain disruption as an emerging risk not fully addressed in the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). While supply chain disruption is not classified as a natural hazard under FEMA mitigation planning requirements, the planning team determined that it represents a significant community resilience issue due to its potential impacts on critical infrastructure and essential services. As a result, a Supply Chain Disruption Annex (Annex 1) was developed to supplement this MJ-HMP. A full list of resources used in plan development is provided in Section 2.3. The planning team also incorporated input from a wide range of stakeholders; a complete list of participating organizations is provided in Appendix A, Section A.1. This MJ-HMP Update applies to the entire Borough. Information specific to the City of Fairbanks and the City of North Pole is incorporated into the community profiles, hazard profiles (Tables 4-1 and 4-12), and the Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) (Tables 11-1 to 11-7). The planning team was formally convened between December 15, 2025, and January 30, 2026, to review prior mitigation planning efforts and establish a schedule for completing the update. The team developed a process for drafting and reviewing hazard profiles, conducting vulnerability analysis, and preparing the updated MAP. On February 12, 2026, the planning team held a stakeholder meeting with representatives from utilities, local businesses, and organizations responsible for critical facilities and infrastructure. Participants provided input on hazard risks, vulnerabilities, and potential mitigation actions. Following the stakeholder meeting, the project manager distributed a request for progress updates on mitigation actions identified in the 2021 MJ-HMP. This request was sent to planning team members and key stakeholder organizations with a response deadline of March 13, 2026. These updates were compiled and used to inform the development of the mitigation strategy. Key stakeholder organizations that contributed to the plan are listed in Table 2-3 and represent critical infrastructure providers, public agencies, and community partners whose input informed the risk assessment and mitigation strategy. 8 FEMA Hazard Mitigation Planning guidance (risk-based planning, use of best available data and studies). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-22 Page 92 of 1055 Table 2-3: Key Stakeholder Organizations Organization Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness/University of Alaska Fairbanks Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Health, Public Health Nursing Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities American Red Cross Aurora Energy Bureau of Indian Affairs Chena Goldstream Fire and Rescue City of Fairbanks City of North Pole Ester Volunteer Fire Department Fairbanks Fire Department Fairbanks North Star Borough Fairbanks Resource Agency Fort Wainwright Foundation Health Partners Interior Gas Utility Interior Region Emergency Medical Services Council, Inc. North Pole Fire Department North Pole Police Department North Star Volunteer Fire Department Northern Alaska Region, Volunteers Active in Disaster Steese Volunteer Fire Department Tanana Chiefs Conference University of Alaska Fairbanks University Police Department Volunteers in Policing In March 2026, the Emergency Management Division collaborated with the FNSB Geographic Information System (GIS) Specialist and GIS Tech to conduct a GIS-based risk assessment and hazard exposure analysis, supporting the identification of vulnerable populations, infrastructure, and critical facilities. The planning team convened again on February 26, 2026, to review progress on mitigation and discuss updates to the mitigation strategy. Responsibilities for drafting and revising plan sections were assigned to team members. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-23 Page 93 of 1055 On March 5, 2026, subject matter experts (Table 2-4) were engaged to review technical information, validate hazard data, and provide specialized expertise that informed hazard profiles and risk analysis presented in Chapter 4. Public and stakeholder input was collected through a series of web-based surveys. An initial set of surveys was distributed between February 6 and March 18, 2026, followed by additional surveys conducted between March 19 and April 24, 2026. A targeted hazard ranking survey was conducted from April 8 to April 30, 2026. Input received through these efforts was used to validate hazard identification and inform prioritization of mitigation actions included in Chapter 11. Table 2-4: Subject Matter Experts Area(s) of Name/Title Organization Expertise Margaret M. Darrow University of Alaska Fairbanks Engineering (Ground Professor/Chair of Civil, College of Engineering and Mines Failure, Cryosphere) Geological, and Environmental Engineering Michael “Mike” West University of Alaska Fairbanks Earth Science Alaska State Seismologist Geophysical Institute (Seismology) and Research Professor Alaska Earthquake Center Dr. Carl Tape University of Alaska Fairbanks Earth Science Professor of Geophysics Geophysical Institute (Seismology) College of Natural Science and Mathematics Department of Geosciences Randi Jandt University of Alaska Fairbanks Ecology (Alaska Fire Fire Ecologist International Arctic Research Center Ecology, Tundra Fire, Alaska Fire Science Consortium Fire Management, Wildlife Biology) Richard “Rick” Thoman University of Alaska Fairbanks Atmospheric and Alaska Climate Specialist International Arctic Research Center Space Science Alaska Center for Climate (Alaska Climate and Assessment and Preparedness Weather) Earth Science FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-24 Page 94 of 1055 Area(s) of Name/Title Organization Expertise Ed Plumb Alaska Center for Climate Climate Adaptation, Weather and Flood Assessment and Preparedness Climatology, Hazards Specialist (ACCAP) Community International Arctic Research Adaptation, Center, University of Alaska Meteorology, Science Fairbanks Engagement, Sea Ice Research Jason Laney National Weather Service Weather Warning Coordination Weather Forecast Office (WFO) Meteorologist Fairbanks Office Crane Johnson National Weather Service Hydrology Senior Hydrologist, Anchorage Office Alaska-Pacific River Forecast Center Jason Sakalaskas Alaska Department of Road Maintenance Maintenance and Transportation and Public Works and Construction Operations Chief Northern Region Maintenance and Operations Ron Davis Alaska Department of Road Maintenance Fairbanks District Transportation and Public Works and Construction Superintendent Northern Region Maintenance and Operations Rob Allen Alaska Division of Forestry and Fire Fire Management Fire Management Officer Protection Fairbanks/Delta Area Fairbanks Office Jake Livingston Alaska Division of Forestry and Fire Fire Management Statewide Fire Operations Protection Chief State Fire Operations The FNSB Emergency Management Division compiled stakeholder input, conducted analysis, and prepared the draft MJ-HMP Update and appendices. Final formatting and review were completed in May 2026, and the draft plan was submitted to the State of Alaska for formal review on June 1, 2026. Public outreach and stakeholder engagement were conducted as an iterative process integrated throughout plan development, consistent with FEMA mitigation planning requirements and documented in Section 2.4 and Appendix B. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-25 Page 95 of 1055 2.3 Plan Development Resources The planning team reviewed a range of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical data sources during development of this MJ-HMP Update. These resources were used to inform the community profile, risk assessment, hazard identification, and mitigation strategy. The planning team evaluated existing data, identified shared objectives across jurisdictions, and incorporated relevant findings and ongoing initiatives into this plan. The following resources were used in the development of this update: Federal Guidance and Regulatory Framework  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2025).  FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide (FP-206-21-002, 2025).  FEMA. Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2, 2001).  U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201: Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) / Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) Guide, 3rd Edition (2018). State and Regional Plans  Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM). State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2023).  Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM). State Hazard Mitigation Plan (2018).  Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group. Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (2010). Local Plans and Studies  Fairbanks North Star Borough. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) (2014).  Fairbanks North Star Borough. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) Update (2021). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-26 Page 96 of 1055  Fairbanks North Star Borough. Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) (2025).  Fairbanks North Star Borough. Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) (2026).  Fairbanks North Star Borough. Regional Comprehensive Plan (2005).  City of North Pole. Land Use Plan (2010).  Agnew::Beck Consulting. Salcha-Badger Road Area Plan (2019).  Applied Development Economics, Inc., Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) (2016).  TriData Division. Comprehensive Review of Emergency Medical Services (2011).  Agnew::Beck Consulting. Senior Needs Assessment (2019). Scientific and Technical Studies  Péwé, T.L. Geologic Hazards of the Fairbanks Area (Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) Special Report 15, 1982).  Rice, E.F. Building in the North, 5th Edition (2008).  Markon, C.J., Trainor, S.F., and Chapin, F.S. (eds.). Alaska Regional Climate Assessment (USGS Circular 1379, 2012).  Wendler, G., and Shulski, M. “A Century of Climate Change for Fairbanks, Alaska.” Arctic (2009).  Jorgenson, M.T., et al. “Permafrost Vulnerability to Climate Change.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research (2010).  Minsley, B.J., et al. “Permafrost Degradation After Fire.” Journal of Geophysical Research (2016).  Brown, D.R., et al. “Wildfire Effects on Permafrost Distribution.” Remote Sensing (2016).  Johnstone, J.F., et al. “Fire, Climate Change, and Forest Resilience in Interior Alaska.” (2010). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-27 Page 97 of 1055  Hoecker, T.J., and Higuera, P.E. “Fire Activity and Climate Variability.” Landscape Ecology (2019).  Gaglioti, B.V., et al. “Boreal Forest Wildfire Regime Change.” The Holocene (2016).  Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness (ACCAP). Winter Rain in Interior Alaska: Community Impacts, Effective Responses, and Policy Implications. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Spring 2026. Hazard-Specific Technical References  Tape, C., et al. “The 1904 Earthquake in Central Alaska.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2017).  Berg, E., et al. 1967 Fairbanks Earthquakes and Aftershocks (UAF Geophysical Institute).  St. Armand, P. “Central Alaska Earthquake Swarm of 1947.” (1948).  Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission. Earthquake Monitoring Report (2016).  Darrow, M.M., and Schwarber, J. Landslides in the FNSB (2019).  BBFM Engineers, Inc. School Seismic Vulnerability Assessment (2017).  Furrh, J.T. Small-Scale Flooding in Fairbanks (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2018). Data Sources and Tools  Alaska Interagency Coordination Center (AICC) / Alaska Fire Service (AFS) fire occurrence and perimeter datasets  Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning (SNAP)  Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness (ACCAP)  UAF Institute of Northern Engineering – Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC)  U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – Hazard and earthquake data  Alaska Earthquake Center (UAF Geophysical Institute) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-28 Page 98 of 1055  Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC)  CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)  Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Regional Affairs (DCCRA) GIS data portal 2.4 Public Involvement Public involvement is a critical component of the hazard mitigation planning process, ensuring that community concerns, local knowledge, and stakeholder priorities are incorporated into the plan. The FNSB, in coordination with the Cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, conducted a comprehensive public engagement process throughout the development of the 2026 MJ-HMP Update. Public outreach included social media campaigns, stakeholder briefings, and a series of community and stakeholder surveys conducted between February and April 2026. In total, 254 community responses and 10 stakeholder responses were collected. These efforts were supplemented by 14 social media posts generating 22,143 views and 165 interactions. Outreach efforts were designed to provide multiple opportunities for participation and included stakeholder meetings, executive-level coordination meetings, public meetings, open house events, advisory committee briefings, and a formal 30-day public comment period. Engagement methods included social media outreach, local media coverage, and distribution of informational materials, including public meeting, open house, and public comment flyers. A total of 38 outreach activities were conducted between February and August 2026, providing iterative opportunities for input throughout the planning process and supporting engagement at key milestones including hazard identification, risk assessment, mitigation strategy development, and plan adoption. Public outreach activities, meeting materials, and documentation of participation are provided in Appendix B and support the public involvement process summarized in Sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.4. 2.4.1 Public Notification The Borough Public Information Officer issued a press release on February 6, 2026, announcing the initiation of the MJ-HMP Update. A dedicated project webpage (https://www.fnsb.gov/mjhmp) was established to provide access to planning documents, meeting schedules, public comment forms, and updates throughout the planning process. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-29 Page 99 of 1055 The project webpage served as the primary information hub throughout the planning process, supporting survey distribution and public engagement activities across multiple phases. Public notification for meetings, open houses, and the 30-day public comment period included coordinated social media campaigns, local media coverage (including newspaper and television), and widespread posting of flyers at high-visibility community locations. Flyers and notices were distributed across libraries, community centers, local businesses, post offices, and public facilities throughout the Borough to ensure broad public awareness. 2.4.2 Stakeholder Engagement The planning team conducted targeted outreach to government agencies, utilities, nonprofit organizations, and entities responsible for critical infrastructure. Presentations and stakeholder briefings were conducted with the following bodies:  Planning Commission – March 10, 2026  Fairbanks Local Emergency Planning Committee (FEPC) – April 22, 2026  Regional Emergency Services Advisory Committee (RESAC) – May 18, 2026 These meetings provided updates on plan development and allowed stakeholders to provide input on hazard identification, risk concerns, and mitigation priorities. These efforts resulted in 10 stakeholder survey responses and additional qualitative input that informed capability assessments, infrastructure needs, and mitigation feasibility considerations. In addition to formal stakeholder briefings, engagement included coordination with advisory bodies such as the FEPC and the RESAC, as well as ongoing input through stakeholder meetings conducted throughout the planning process. 2.4.3 Surveys and Public Input Tools The planning team implemented a multi-phased survey strategy to gather input from community members and stakeholders at key stages of plan development. Surveys conducted between February and April 2026 included three community surveys and two stakeholder surveys. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-30 Page 100 of 1055 Community Survey #1 (February 2026), which focused on hazard awareness, past impacts, and preparedness challenges, received 153 responses. Community Survey #2 (March–April 2026) gathered input on mitigation priorities, preferred strategies, and implementation concerns, with 47 responses. Community Survey #3 (April 2026) validated hazard rankings and received 44 responses, confirming alignment between technical risk analysis and community perception. In total, the surveys generated 254 community responses and 10 stakeholder responses, providing a robust dataset representing diverse geographic areas, populations with access and functional needs, and both urban and rural residents. Survey distribution was supported through coordinated outreach, including social media campaigns, Borough communication channels, and direct stakeholder engagement. Across all outreach efforts, 14 social media posts generated 905 reach, 22,143 views, and 165 interactions, supporting broad participation. Survey results directly informed hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and the development and prioritization of mitigation actions presented in Chapter 4 and Chapter 11. Additional documentation of outreach activities is provided in Appendix B, and detailed survey instruments and results are included in Appendix C. In addition to surveys, public comment forms were made available online and in hard copy throughout the Borough. Printed draft plan materials and comment forms were placed at accessible locations, including the FNSB Clerk’s Office, City of Fairbanks Clerk’s Office, City of North Pole Clerk’s Office, Noel Wien Library, North Pole Library, Haystack, and Emergency Operations office to ensure participation from residents without reliable internet access. 2.4.4 Public Review of Draft Plan The draft MJ-HMP Update was available for public review and comment from May 30, 2026, through June 28, 2026, constituting a formal 30-day public comment period. The draft plan was made available online on the project website and in print at multiple public locations throughout the Borough, including libraries and public offices. Public comment forms were provided both online and in hard copy to maximize accessibility. Public Open Houses were conducted to encourage participation and provide opportunities for in-person review and comment submission:  June 2, 2026 – North Pole Library (5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.)  June 3, 2026 – Noel Wien Library (5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-31 Page 101 of 1055  June 4, 2026 – Ester Volunteer Fire Department (6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.) These events were held at geographically dispersed locations to ensure accessibility across the Borough and to support engagement from a broad range of community members. Outreach for the public review period included a coordinated campaign of social media posts, news media coverage, and widespread distribution of physical flyers. Flyers for both the open houses and the 30-day public comment period were posted at numerous locations across the Borough, including community bulletin boards, libraries, local businesses, post offices, and other frequently visited public spaces to maximize awareness and ensure accessibility for residents who may not engage through digital platforms. Public comments received during the 30-day review period were compiled, reviewed, and evaluated by the planning team in coordination with participating jurisdictions. A total of 21 comments were received from agency partners, subject matter experts, and members of the public. Comments primarily focused on improving technical clarity, strengthening hazard characterization (particularly severe weather and winter rain events), enhancing the Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) to better align with FEMA requirements, incorporating updated datasets (including Social Vulnerability Index data), and improving overall document organization and usability. All comments were addressed and incorporated into the final plan as appropriate, resulting in substantive improvements to plan quality, technical accuracy, and implementability. A detailed Public Comment Summary and Response Matrix, including a synthesis of key themes, outcomes, and resulting plan improvements, is provided in Appendix D. This process ensured compliance with FEMA requirements for public participation (44 CFR §201.6) and supported final plan revisions prior to adoption, as described in Section 2.6. 2.4.5 Previous Plan Outreach (2021 Update) Public outreach efforts during the 2021 MJ-HMP Update included media engagement, public meetings, and online information-sharing. These efforts included interviews with local media outlets, public presentations, and distribution of informational materials through Borough communication channels. These prior efforts helped inform continued outreach strategies for the 2026 update. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-32 Page 102 of 1055 2.4.6 Ongoing Public Involvement The Borough will continue to involve the public in the implementation and maintenance of the MJ-HMP. A current copy of the adopted plan and future updates will be maintained:  On the Borough website  At FNSB Planning and Emergency Operations offices  At the City of Fairbanks and the City of North Pole offices  At public libraries, including North Pole and Noel Wien Annual review reports and plan updates will also be made available to the public. Detailed documentation of outreach activities, including meeting records, outreach materials, flyer distributions, and social media metrics, is provided in Appendix B. 2.5 Review, Evaluation, and Implementation of the 2021 MJ-HMP To remain an effective tool for reducing risk from natural hazards, a hazard mitigation plan must reflect current conditions, priorities, and community capabilities. The update process provides an opportunity to evaluate progress made under the previous plan, assess the effectiveness of mitigation actions, and revise strategies to address changing risks and development patterns. The 2026 update reflects changes in hazard data, development trends, vulnerability conditions, and mitigation priorities since adoption of the 2021 MJ-HMP. The planning team reviewed the 2021 MJ-HMP to evaluate the status of previously identified mitigation actions, assess progress toward established goals, and determine the continued relevance of those actions. This evaluation considered project implementation progress, changes in hazard conditions, and evolving community priorities. The results of this review informed the development of the updated mitigation strategy presented in Chapter 10. As part of this update, the planning team assessed current development patterns and trends across the Borough, the City of Fairbanks, and the City of North Pole. This assessment supported the identification of changes in exposure and vulnerability and helped ensure that mitigation actions reflect current and future risk conditions. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-33 Page 103 of 1055 The planning team made several updates to the organization and prioritization of hazards in the 2021 plan. Cryosphere-related hazards, including permafrost degradation, were incorporated into the ground failure hazard category. These processes directly affect ground stability, resulting in subsidence, settlement, slope instability, and damage to infrastructure. Consolidating these hazards improves clarity, reduces redundancy, and more accurately reflects the physical mechanisms affecting the Borough. In addition to the five natural hazards addressed in this plan, the planning team evaluated a broader range of risks affecting the community. Several technological and human-caused hazards were identified as important considerations due to their potential impacts on infrastructure systems, public health, and economic stability. These hazards are not included as profiled hazards in this MJ-HMP but were evaluated to support broader emergency management planning and coordination with the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP). These considerations include:  Cyber incidents affecting critical infrastructure and government systems  Hazardous materials and energy-related incidents, including liquefied natural gas (LNG)  Long-term power outages affecting utilities, communications, and essential services  Supply chain disruptions affecting the availability of food, fuel, and critical supplies  Intentional acts, including active threat incidents affecting public safety and critical facilities Long-term power outages and supply chain disruptions were further evaluated as community resilience risks due to the Borough’s geographic isolation and reliance on critical infrastructure systems. While these hazards are not classified as natural hazards under FEMA mitigation planning requirements, their potential impacts on essential services, lifelines, and community resilience were considered in coordination with the CEMP and supporting annexes. The mitigation strategy was updated from the 2021 plan to better align with the 2023 Alaska State Hazard Mitigation Plan. This alignment emphasizes an all-hazards approach and prioritizes actions that reduce risk across multiple hazard types. The planning team also updated the mitigation strategy to improve flexibility, allowing participating jurisdictions and critical infrastructure partners to pursue a broader range of FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-34 Page 104 of 1055 mitigation projects and funding opportunities. This approach supports implementing scalable, multi-benefit projects that enhance overall community resilience. 2.6 Plan Adoption and Approval The FNSB, City of Fairbanks, and City of North Pole formally reviewed and adopted the 2026 MJ-HMP Update in accordance with local procedures and FEMA requirements. The Project Manager presented the draft MJ-HMP Update to the FNSB Planning Commission on March 10, 2026. The Planning Commission reviewed the plan and provided no additional recommendations. The Project Manager presented the MJ-HMP Update to the FNSB Planning Commission on July 28, 2026. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the plan. The MJ-HMP Update was introduced on the FNSB Assembly Consent Calendar and was formally adopted by the FNSB Assembly on August 13, 2026, by Resolution No. [INSERT]. The Project Manager presented the MJ-HMP Update to the Fairbanks City Council during a work session on August 4, 2026. Following review and consideration, the Fairbanks City Council formally adopted the MJ-HMP on August 10, 2026, by Resolution No. [INSERT]. The Project Manager presented the MJ-HMP Update to the North Pole City Council on August 3, 2026. Following review and consideration, the North Pole City Council formally adopted the MJ-HMP on August 17, 2026, by Resolution No. [INSERT]. The plan, updated to reflect stakeholder and public input, was submitted to the Alaska DHS&EM for State review on July 1, 2026. DHS&EM transmitted the plan to FEMA Region 10 on July 31, 2026, for federal review and approval. FEMA Region 10 approved the MJ-HMP Update on September 12, 2026. Figure 2-1 illustrates the hazard mitigation plan review, approval, and adoption process, including coordination between local jurisdictions, the State of Alaska, and FEMA. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-35 Page 105 of 1055 Figure 2-1: Hazard Mitigation Plan Approval and Adoption Process Public Comment Period on DRAFT HMP Update Assembly & Councils adopt HMP Update by Resolution Draft HMP Update submitted to Alaska DHS&EM for Review DHS&EM submits Draft HMP Update to FEMA for Review FEMA provides Final HMP Update Approval 2.6.1 Plan Integration The 2026 MJ-HMP Update will be incorporated into existing planning and policy documents as appropriate, based on each document’s update cycle. This integration ensures consistency between hazard mitigation strategies and broader community planning efforts and supports implementation through established regulatory, capital planning, and policy frameworks, as summarized in Table 2-5. These integration efforts are further supported by the mitigation strategy described in Chapter 10, which identifies actions, capabilities, and implementation mechanisms aligned with existing plans and programs. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-36 Page 106 of 1055 Table 2-5: Existing Plans and Codes Applicable Plans Completed Next Review FNSB Capital Improvement Program (CIP), 10-Year Plan 02/22/2024 Every 10 years FNSB Capital Improvement Program (CIP), 02/27/2025 Biennially FNSB Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) 06/26/2025 As needed FNSB Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 09/08/2022 Every 5 years Update, 2022-2027 FNSB Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy June 2026 As needed (CEDS) Update FNSB Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan 04/09/2026 Every 5 years (CEMP) FNSB Comprehensive Review of Emergency Medical 2011 As needed Services (EMS) ≥20 years FNSB Comprehensive Road Plan April 2024 (maps every 10 years) FNSB Legislative Priorities (LP) Annually Annually In progress FNSB Regional Comprehensive Plan 2005 (started 2024) FNSB Floodplain Regulations (FNSBC 15) 2020 As needed 01/15/2026 FNSB Subdivision Ordinance (FNSBC 17) As needed update City of Fairbanks Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) 09/08/2025 Annually City of Fairbanks Information Technology Disaster December 2025 As needed Recovery Plan City of Fairbanks International Building Code (IBC) 2018 2024 Edition 04/17/2021 Edition In Progress City of North Pole Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) 2014 Annually City of North Pole International Building Code (IBC) 2018 February 2022 As needed Edition North Pole Land Use Plan 01/28/2010 As needed Fairbanks & North Pole Storm Water Management Plan February 2019 As needed Fairbanks & North Pole Storm Water Management June 2019 As needed Program Guide, 5th Edition FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-37 Page 107 of 1055 Integration by Jurisdiction Each participating jurisdiction integrates the mitigation strategy into its existing planning mechanisms in a manner consistent with its authority, responsibilities, and operational structure. The following describes how each jurisdiction incorporates hazard mitigation actions into relevant plans, programs, and decision-making processes. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) The FNSB integrates mitigation actions from this plan into Borough-level planning mechanisms through established administrative, planning, and capital improvement processes. Hazard mitigation considerations are incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, capital improvement planning, subdivision review, zoning decisions (Title 18), and floodplain management (Title 15). The FNSB Community Planning and Emergency Operations Departments coordinate to ensure that hazard risk information and mitigation priorities are considered during project planning, grant development, and review of development proposals. Mitigation actions identified in the MAP are incorporated into capital project scoping, particularly for infrastructure, drainage, and transportation-related improvements. The Borough also integrates mitigation into emergency planning documents, including the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP), Continuity of Operations (COOP) planning, and post-disaster recovery planning. Where regulatory authority is limited, particularly in unincorporated areas, integration occurs through coordination with service areas, utilities, and partner agencies, as well as through public outreach and voluntary mitigation programs. City of Fairbanks The City of Fairbanks integrates mitigation actions into municipal planning and operations through its building code enforcement, permitting processes, capital improvement planning, and departmental work plans. The City applies adopted building codes, including the International Building Code (IBC), to ensure that new development and redevelopment incorporate hazard-resistant design and construction practices. Mitigation actions identified in the MAP are considered during capital project development, particularly for public facilities, transportation infrastructure, utilities, and emergency services. The City’s public works, fire, and emergency management functions incorporate mitigation priorities into project planning, maintenance, and upgrades. The City also integrates hazard mitigation into emergency response and continuity planning, including emergency operations planning and coordination with Borough and regional partners. Participation in mitigation grant programs and interagency coordination efforts further supports the implementation of mitigation actions identified in the MAP. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-38 Page 108 of 1055 City of North Pole The City of North Pole integrates mitigation actions into municipal planning and operations through its building code enforcement, permitting processes, capital improvement planning, and infrastructure management activities. The City enforces adopted building codes, including the IBC, to promote resilient construction and reduce risk from identified hazards. Mitigation actions from the MAP are incorporated into the planning and implementation of local infrastructure projects, including roads, utilities, and public facilities. City departments consider hazard risk when prioritizing maintenance, upgrades, and capital investments. The City integrates mitigation into emergency response planning and coordination with the FNSB, state agencies, and local partners. Participation in joint planning efforts, including hazard mitigation planning updates and grant-funded projects, supports implementation of mitigation actions identified in this plan. 2.7 Plan Monitoring, Evaluation, and Updating Disaster Mitigation Act planning regulations9 require an explicit monitoring, evaluation, and updating process that includes:  A section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle;  A mechanism for participating jurisdictions to incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning documents, when appropriate; and  A public participation strategy for the plan maintenance process. Plan monitoring will be carried out by the FNSB Emergency Management Division, representatives from the cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, and hazard mitigation plan stakeholders, via an annual review questionnaire and progress reports (see Appendix A, Plan Maintenance Documents, Sections A.2 and A.3) from agencies and departments in participating jurisdictions. Multi-jurisdictional plans require that implementation in each participating jurisdiction must be individually reviewed and documented. The annual progress reports will be compiled by FNSB Emergency Management and provided to FNSB directors and representatives from the cities of Fairbanks and North Pole for review of the following:  Timely compliance with mitigation requirements 9 3 DMA §201.6(C)(4)(I) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-39 Page 109 of 1055  Procedural efficiency  Public outreach during the implementation of mitigation actions  Updates of hazard profiles and activity  Updates to the vulnerability analysis regarding new critical facilities or infrastructure  Changes in development patterns  New resources available to implement mitigation planning  Present goal applicability  Progress of mitigation plan actions  Prioritization of existing or additional mitigation measures revised as necessary. The review questionnaire and progress report will be submitted to FNSB Emergency Management two months prior to the scheduled planning meeting date. A compiled report will be submitted to the Borough Assembly and the Fairbanks and North Pole City Councils and will be made public. While annual reviews and minor updates are completed as needed, the HMP will undergo major revisions, updates, and resubmission to FEMA every 5 years to maintain grant eligibility. These five-year updates will demonstrate progress in hazard mitigation and risk reduction over time and will not be an appendix to the approved plan. Instead, the updates will stand on their own. Figure 2-2 illustrates the five-year hazard mitigation planning cycle, including annual review, monitoring, and update activities that ensure the plan remains current and actionable. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-40 Page 110 of 1055 Figure 2-2: Five-Year Hazard Mitigation Planning Cycle Year 1: Plan submitted to and approved by State and FEMA, adopted by Borough Assembly and City Councils. Year 5: Annual review questionnaire and Year 2: Annual review progress report. questionnaire and Reconvene Steering progress report; minor Committee and updates. conduct 5-year plan update process. Year 4: Annual review questionnaire and Year 3: Annual review progress report; minor questionnaire and updates. Consider progress report; minor grant funding for 5- updates. year update process. Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Community Planning, “Hazard Mitigation Plan: A Multi-Hazard, Multi-Jurisdictional Plan for the Fairbanks North Star Borough and its Communities," 1/27/2014 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-41 Page 111 of 1055 2.7.1 Arctic Urban Risks and Adaptations Project The FNSB is one of three participating communities in the University of Alaska’s National Science Foundation-funded “Arctic Urban Risks and Adaptations (AURA) project.” The AURA project (https://iseralaska.org/aura/) will broaden understanding of natural hazards and their impacts on the people, economy, environment, and infrastructure of the borough. The project provides a great opportunity to increase public participation in the next planning cycle. It will inform the next required update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan. During each annual review and minor update of the plan maintenance cycle, the planning team will incorporate AURA products such as risk assessments, spatial data, survey results, data, economic costs, citizen science, and other findings. The 4-year AURA project started in September 2020 with the following goals and objectives: AURA Goals:  Work with communities to assess wildfire, permafrost, and rain-in-winter hazards and risks as they have changed since 1980 and are projected to change over the next four decades.  Estimate the public and private costs associated with these hazards and actions taken to mitigate or adapt to them.  Work with government employees, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and tribal Entities to learn how communities are adapting to and mitigating these changing hazards, how the hazards may interact with each other to cause cumulative effects, and help develop a vision for improving future adaptation. AURA Objectives:  Develop spatial models and maps of wildfire, permafrost thaw, and rain-in-winter hazards and their potential interactions.  Gather data with interviews, property owner surveys, and citizen science to assess perceived risks, values at risk, and adaptation costs.  Model the risks and associated economic costs of these natural hazards and adaptation and mitigation actions.  Develop, in a series of scenario planning workshops, an adaptive policy framework that city planners and others can use to adapt to and mitigate multiple hazards and reduce future risks and costs. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-42 Page 112 of 1055 The National Science Foundation–funded AURA project concluded its primary research phase after completing its planned four-year scope of work. At the conclusion of the grant period, responsibility for maintaining, hosting, and disseminating AURA project outputs transitioned to the University of Alaska’s Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER). Key AURA products—including spatial hazard data, risk visualizations, economic analyses, and scenario-planning tools—remain publicly accessible through ISER and affiliated platforms, ensuring continued availability of project findings for local governments, planners, and the public.10 Following the completion of the research phase, ISER and project partners launched platforms such as “Respond to Risk” to support ongoing use and application of AURA data and tools by communities and decision-makers. These resources are intended to translate AURA findings into practical applications for hazard mitigation, land-use planning, and adaptation decision-making. Fairbanks North Star Borough Emergency Management will continue to reference and utilize available AURA and Respond to Risk products during plan maintenance activities and future hazard mitigation planning efforts, leveraging the completed research to inform locally relevant, data-driven mitigation strategies.11 10 Arctic Urban Risks and Adaptations (AURA), Institute of Social and Economic Research: https://iseralaska.org/aura/ 11 Arctic Urban Risks and Adaptations (AURA), Institute of Social and Economic Research: https://iseralaska.org/aura/ FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2-43 Page 113 of 1055 3. Community Profile The FNSB is located in the heart of Interior Alaska and is the second-largest population center and fourth-largest borough in the state. The FNSB encompasses 7,361 square miles of land and 77.8 square miles of water. It serves as the hub for the Interior and northern half of the state with large regional hospitals, health centers, and road, rail, and air connections to the rest of Alaska and the Lower 48. It is also home to an Army base, an Air Force base, and the state's oldest and second-largest university campus. The Borough’s two incorporated cities, Fairbanks and North Pole, are located about 14 miles apart in the west-central portion of the FNSB, on the alluvial plain between the Chena and Tanana Rivers. The cities are situated at an elevation of approximately 440 feet above sea level and are surrounded by the Tanana Valley with rolling hills to the north, east, and west. Immediately surrounding the cities are 15 unincorporated Census-Designated Places (CDP) with strong community identities, as well as the Fort Wainwright Army Post (Fort Wainwright) and Eielson Air Force Base (Eielson AFB) military installations. The Borough includes two incorporated cities and multiple CDPs, reflecting a mix of urban, suburban, and rural development patterns across the planning area, as summarized in Table 3-1. The geographic context of the Borough, including its location within Interior Alaska and its relationship to surrounding communities and transportation corridors, is illustrated in Figure 3-1. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-1 Page 114 of 1055 Table 3-1: Incorporated Cities, Census‐Designated Places (CDP), and Recognized Communities in the FNSB Population (2020 Form of Jurisdiction Classification Census / State Government Estimates)12 2nd Class Borough, FNSB Strong Mayor 97,083 Incorporated 1964 Home Rule City, Fairbanks Strong Mayor 31,535 Incorporated 1903 Home Rule City, North Pole Strong Mayor 2,208 Incorporated 1953 Badger Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 19,031 Chena Ridge Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 6,015 College Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 11,686 Eielson AFB Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 3,559 Ester Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 2,422 Farmers Loop Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 4,704 Fox Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 441 Goldstream Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 3,299 Harding‐Birch Lakes Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 264 Moose Creek Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 441 Pleasant Valley Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 484 Salcha Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 965 South Van Horn Unincorporated N/A 572 Steele Creek Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 6,437 Two Rivers Unincorporated (CDP) N/A 608 Table 3-1 Note: Population figures are based primarily on the U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census for incorporated cities and Census-Designated Places (CDPs). For smaller or non-CDP communities, Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOLWD) population estimates and American Community Survey (ACS) data were used where applicable. 12 U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census – City and CDP populations: https://www.census.gov Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOLWD), Research and Analysis Section; Alaska Population Estimates by Place: https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/estimates/data/TotalPopulationPlace.xlsx FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-2 Page 115 of 1055 Figure 3-1: Map of FNSB Vicinity Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough Emergency Management Specialist (ESRI & Census Bureau) 2026 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-3 Page 116 of 1055 3.1 History In 1901, Captain E.T. Barnette established a trading post on the Chena River when he was stranded on his way to the gold fields discovered in Tanacross. This trading post, initially home to a modest 5,600 individuals, grew into the modern-day City of Fairbanks. At the time, the population was primarily Alaska Native, but the 1902 gold discovery, just 16 miles north of the post, brought an influx of settlers from the United States, Canada, and Europe. By 1903, Fairbanks had become well established as a gold-mining town, and by the end of the year, the City of Fairbanks had been incorporated. The gold discovery swelled the population to 13,064 by 1910. By World War I, much of the easy-to-reach gold had been extracted, leading to economic and population decline in Fairbanks. Early transportation of goods and supplies into and out of the settlement relied on sternwheeler river boats. The completion of the Alaska Railroad in 1923 significantly reduced river shipping and hastened the development of Fairbanks by enabling more efficient delivery of goods and supplies. World affairs in Europe and Russia, combined with the new accessibility of the Fairbanks area, led to the establishment of the U.S. Army Garrison Fort Wainwright (originally the Ladd Army Airfield) in 1939 and Eielson Air Force Base (Eielson AFB) (originally the Mile 26 satellite airfield) in 1943, triggering new economic development and population growth. In 1944, the area between Fort Wainwright and Eielson AFB was homesteaded by Bon V. and Bernice Davis, and shortly thereafter, the Alaska Railroad built the Davis Siding along its spur line to Eielson at the homestead. In 1952, Dahl and Gaske Development Company purchased the Davis homestead, subdivided it, and renamed it North Pole in the hope of attracting a toy manufacturer to the area. The City of North Pole was incorporated on January 15, 1953, from portions of the original Davis homestead and an adjacent homestead owned by James Ford. After President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the State of Alaska into the United States in 1959, the Alaska Legislature passed the Mandatory Borough Act of 1963, requiring the state’s most populous areas to form organized boroughs. This Act established the FNSB in 1964 and seated the Assembly in the City of Fairbanks. Statehood, an improved transportation system between Anchorage and Fairbanks, and the preservation of Denali National Park contributed to economic diversification and revitalization during the 1960s. The 1968 discovery of oil on Alaska’s North Slope was another economic boom to the area as construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline began in 1974. When completed, the 800-mile pipeline transported crude oil from Prudhoe Bay on the northern shore of Alaska through the greater Fairbanks area before terminating at the port of Valdez for worldwide shipment via ocean-going oil tankers. After the pipeline’s completion, the population abruptly declined within the Borough. Over the next 45 years, slow but steady population growth has FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-4 Page 117 of 1055 contributed to a diverse and stable economy serving approximately 97,000 people living in the Borough today. The FNSB was established as a second-class borough on January 1, 1964, by the State of Alaska Mandatory Borough Act of 1963. The Borough is a unit of local government analogous to a county with school district powers. Its charter provided for the mandatory powers of property assessment and taxation, administration of public schools, and planning and zoning. Additional powers have been assumed by the voters or added by Alaska Statutes, including platting, parks and recreation, administration of a public library, operation of public transportation, operation of limited health and social services, animal control, emergency communication services (enhanced 911), solid waste disposal, flood control, air pollution control, and tourism and marketing funded by hotel-motel room taxes. The Borough has a nine-member Assembly and a directly elected mayor who serves as the Chief Administrative Officer for a three-year term. The mayor can introduce legislation, has veto power, and manages the Borough's day-to-day operations. In addition to overseeing Borough administration, the mayor oversees the FNSB budget and capital improvements. The Assembly members are elected at large, on a nonpartisan basis, for overlapping three- year terms. The Assembly approves the budget, sets the mill rate for taxation, and appropriates funds to provide for Borough services, among other tasks. A representative from the City of Fairbanks, the City of North Pole, and the School Board is selected in accordance with specific policies and serves a term set by the respective city or school board. The representatives serve as delegates between their respective bodies and the Borough Assembly, providing information about significant issues and activities. A delegate may participate in all deliberations on matters before the Assembly; however, they are not permitted to vote once a matter has been brought into question. The presiding officer may seat a city or school board delegate on any assembly committee. Non-areawide powers are exercised in the geographic area of the Borough, excluding the incorporated areas of Fairbanks and North Pole. Those powers are emergency disasters, emergency medical services, solid waste collection, and economic development. In addition, the Borough is responsible for more than 100 active service areas. Service areas are smaller jurisdictions within the FNSB that provide specific services such as road maintenance, fire protection, water and sewer, or streetlights. The Borough mayor appoints volunteer commissioners, who are confirmed by the Borough Assembly, to oversee the affairs of each service area. Taxes levied on an areawide basis may only be expended on area-wide functions. Likewise, taxes levied on a non-areawide basis or within a service area may only be expended on the FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-5 Page 118 of 1055 geographic area that was taxed. However, in accordance with a statutory exception, the Borough expends some areawide taxes on economic development (a non-areawide power) in conformity with an agreement between the Borough and the Cities of Fairbanks and North Pole13. The City of Fairbanks was incorporated on November 10, 1903, and the City of North Pole was incorporated on January 16, 1953. Both of their charters provide for a Council-Mayor form of government with City Councils, each comprised of the mayor and six elected Council members, to enact laws, ordinances, resolutions, and administrative orders. 3.2 Alaska Native Corporations Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) were created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 to resolve long-standing aboriginal land claims in Alaska and to stimulate economic development throughout the state. ANCSA established 12 land-owning regional for-profit corporations and approximately 200 village corporations statewide, later supplemented by a thirteenth regional corporation for Alaska Natives who were not originally enrolled. Together, these corporations serve their shareholders through dividends, workforce training, employment opportunities, charitable contributions, and social and cultural leadership.14 Within the FNSB, there is one regional ANCSA corporation and multiple village corporations representing Interior Alaska communities. Doyon, Limited is the Interior Alaska regional ANCSA corporation, headquartered in Fairbanks. It is the largest private landowner in Alaska, managing approximately 12.5 million acres, and represents more than 20,000 shareholders. Doyon focuses on responsible natural resource development and long-term economic sustainability while supporting traditional land use and cultural values. The corporation operates a diverse portfolio of Alaska-based businesses across sectors, including oil and gas services, natural resource development, government contracting, and tourism. 15 The Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) is a regional Alaska Native non-profit corporation, representing tribes across Interior Alaska. Known in the Lower Tanana language as 13 Financial Services Dept. 2011 14 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), Pub. L. 92-203 (1971); ANCSA Regional Association: https://ancsaregional.com/about-ancsa/ U.S. Department of the Interior, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act overview: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10354/pdf/COMPS-10354.pdf 15 Doyon, Limited – Lands and Corporate Profile: https://www.doyon.com/lands/ First Alaskans Magazine, Doyon, Limited Corporate Profile: https://magazine.firstalaskans.org/spotlight/doyon-limited/ FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-6 Page 119 of 1055 Denakkanaaga ("Our Land Speaks"), TCC supports Tribal self-determination and the enhancement of regional unity. The TCC region includes 42 federally recognized tribes spanning approximately 235,000 square miles, or about 37 percent of Alaska’s land area. TCC provides a wide range of programs and services, including healthcare, social services, tribal governance support, natural resource management, public safety, community planning, and transportation, all of which contribute to the resilience of Interior Alaska communities.16 Alaska Native corporations and tribal organizations play a critical role in land stewardship, economic development, and community resilience across Interior Alaska and are important planning partners in hazard mitigation efforts. Key organizational contacts for major institutions and entities within the Borough are provided in Table 3-2 and represent important partners in hazard mitigation, emergency response, and community resilience efforts. 16 Tanana Chiefs Conference – About Us and Regional Overview: https://www.tananachiefs.org/about/ Tanana Chiefs Conference – Communities and Region Map: https://www.tananachiefs.org/about/communities/ FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-7 Page 120 of 1055 Table 3-2: Community Administration Contacts FNSB City of Fairbanks Grier Hopkins, Mayor Mindy O'Neall, Mayor 907 Terminal Street 800 Cushman Street PO Box 71267 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Fairbanks, AK 99707 Phone: (907) 459‐6715 Phone: (907) 459‐1300 Fax: (907) 459‐6787 Fax: (907) 459‐1102 (Mayor’s Office) Email: mayor@fairbanks.gov Email: mayor@fnsb.gov Web: https://www.fairbanks.gov Web: https://www.fnsb.gov City of North Pole FNSB School District Larry Terch III, Mayor Dr. Luke Meinert, Superintendent 125 Snowman Lane 520 Fifth Avenue North Pole, AK 99705 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Phone: 907‐488‐2281 Phone: 907‐452‐2000 Fax: 907‐488‐3002 Fax: 907‐451‐0541 (District Main) Email: mayor@northpolealaska.org Email: superintendent@K12northstar.org Web: https://www.northpolealaska.com Web: https://www.k12northstar.org Doyon, Limited Tanana Chiefs Conference Dan Winkelman, President and CEO Sharon Hildebrand, Chief/Chairman 1 Doyon Place, Suite 300 122 1st Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99701 Fairbanks, AK 99701 Phone: 907‐459‐2000 Phone: 907‐452‐8251 Fax: 907‐459‐2060 Fax: 907‐459‐3850 (Administration) Email: info@doyon.com Email: info@tananachiefs.org Web: https://www.doyon.com Web: https://www.tananachiefs.org Fairbanks Native Association Sharon McConnell, Board President 605 Hughes Avenue, Suite 100 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (907) 452-1648 Web: https://www.fairbanksnative.org Table 3-2 Note: Contacts listed reflect elected officials or executive leadership at the time of plan development and are subject to change.17 17 Fairbanks North Star Borough, Mayor’s Office – Grier Hopkins, official contact information and directory. https://www.fnsb.gov/directory.aspx?eid=199 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-8 Page 121 of 1055 3.3 Socioeconomics and Development Trends The FNSB is the third-largest population center in the State of Alaska, with an estimated population of 97,083 residents (approximately 13.1 percent of the total state population) according to 2025 population estimates from the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOLWD), Research and Analysis Section. Population trends in the Borough have historically followed the growth and decline of the regional economy. While the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in the 1970s led to a period of rapid population growth, more recent decades have been characterized by slower and more stable changes. Between 2020 Census and 2025 ADOLWD estimate, the Borough’s population increased modestly from 95,655 to 97,083 residents, representing approximately 1.5 percent growth. Although overall population growth has remained relatively stable, recent estimates indicate a gradual shift in where residents live within the Borough. Some suburban and outlying areas, including Badger, College, and Eielson AFB, have experienced modest population increases, while the City of Fairbanks has seen a slight population decline since 2021. These patterns suggest continued residential development outside the historic urban core, influenced by regional economic conditions, military presence, employment opportunities, and broader migration trends within Interior Alaska. The median age of a Borough resident is 33 years, and approximately 53 percent of the population is male, according to population estimates from the ADOLWD, Research and Analysis Section. Recent population estimates also indicate a gradual aging of the Borough’s population, with noticeable increases in residents over the age of 70 between 2020 and 2025. At the same time, the largest age cohorts remain concentrated between ages 20 and 34, reflecting the influence of the UAF, military personnel, and the regional workforce on the Borough’s demographic structure. Key City of Fairbanks, Mayor’s Office – Mindy O’Neall, official contact information. https://www.fairbanks.gov/directory City of North Pole, Mayor’s Office – Larry Terch III, official contact information. https://www.northpolealaska.com/government/mayor.php Fairbanks North Star Borough School District, Office of the Superintendent – Dr. Luke Meinert. https://www.k12northstar.org/about/superintendent/about-dr-meinert https://education.alaska.gov/DOE_Rolodex/SchoolCalendar/District/16 Doyon, Limited, Corporate Contact and Leadership Information. https://www.doyon.com/contact/ https://magazine.firstalaskans.org/spotlight/doyon-limited/ Tanana Chiefs Conference, Executive Leadership and Contact Information – Chief/Chairman Brian Ridley. https://www.tananachiefs.org/about/our-leadership/executive-board/brian-ridley/ https://www.tananachiefs.org/about/ Fairbanks Native Association, Board of Directors and Organizational Information – Sharon McConnell, Board President. https://www.fairbanksnative.org/senior-management/ FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-9 Page 122 of 1055 demographic, economic, and development characteristics described in this section provide context for the vulnerability assessment presented in Chapter 4. 3.3.1 Housing Development Trends The Borough’s housing stock consists of approximately 42,723 housing units, of which 36,359 are occupied households and about 6,364 are vacant or seasonal units. The average household size is approximately 2.51 persons, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. In recent years, the City of North Pole and surrounding areas have experienced increased construction of both single-family and multi-family housing, associated in part with housing demand related to an increasing active-duty military population at Fort Wainwright and Eielson AFB. Recent residential construction trends are summarized in Tables 3-3 through 3-5 and illustrate continued growth primarily in areas outside the incorporated cities. As shown in Table 3-3, single-family housing development is consistently concentrated in the Balance of Borough, accounting for the vast majority of annual construction (ranging from approximately 84 to 93 percent of total single-family units between 2021 and 2024). This pattern reflects ongoing residential expansion into suburban and rural areas, increasing the geographic distribution of housing across the Borough. Table 3-3: Single-Family FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 Location 2021 2022 2023 2024 Fairbanks 11 8 5 10 North Pole 19 13 12 6 Balance of Borough 164 183 214 167 Total 194 204 231 183 Source: Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development (ADOLWD), Research and Analysis Section, Alaska New Housing Units – Single-Family Completions by Place, 2021–2024. Retrieved March 11, 2026, from https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/housing/newh.cfm. Multi-family construction trends, summarized in Table 3-4, show greater variability across jurisdictions and years. Periods of increased development in Fairbanks (notably 2022–2023) and North Pole reflect localized growth pressures and housing demand, while continued development in the Balance of Borough indicates diversification of housing types beyond the urban core. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-10 Page 123 of 1055 Table 3-4: Multi-Family FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 Location 2021 2022 2023 2024 Fairbanks 3 32 72 12 North Pole 32 42 12 10 Balance of Borough 25 46 56 46 Total 60 120 140 68 Source: Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development (ADOLWD), Research and Analysis Section, Alaska New Housing Units – Multi-Family Completions by Place, 2021–2024. Retrieved March 11, 2026, from https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/housing/newh.cfm. Overall housing development trends, presented in Table 3-5, indicate fluctuations in total annual construction, with a peak in 2023 followed by a decline in 2024. Despite year-to-year variability, the data consistently demonstrate that the majority of new housing development occurs outside incorporated city boundaries, reinforcing a pattern of dispersed residential growth. Table 3-5: Total FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 Location 2021 2022 2023 2024 Fairbanks 14 40 77 22 North Pole 51 55 24 16 Balance of Borough 189 229 270 213 Total 254 324 371 251 Source: Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development (ADOLWD), Research and Analysis Section, Alaska New Housing Units – Total Completed Housing Units (Single-Family and Multi-Family) by Place, 2021–2024. Retrieved March 11, 2026, from https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/housing/newh.cfm. This development pattern has important implications for hazard mitigation and emergency management. Expansion into outlying areas increases exposure to hazards such as wildfire, flooding, and limited emergency access, and may place additional demands on infrastructure, transportation networks, and emergency response capabilities. Figures 3-2 through 3-4 visually illustrate these trends and reinforce the distribution and variability of housing development over time across jurisdictions. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-11 Page 124 of 1055 Figure 3-2: Single-Family FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 Source: https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/housing/newh.cfm, Retrieved 8/31/2020 Figure 3-3: Multi-Family FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 Source: https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/housing/newh.cfm, Retrieved 3/11/2026 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-12 Page 125 of 1055 Figure 3-4: Total Family FNSB New Housing Units 2021–2024 Source: https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/housing/newh.cfm, Retrieved 3/11/2026 3.3.2 Economy The FNSB serves as the primary economic center for Interior Alaska and functions as a regional service hub for communities across northern Alaska, including areas connected to North Slope energy development and the Dalton Highway corridor. The Borough’s economy is supported by a diverse mix of government, military, education, health care, transportation, retail trade, and resource development activities. Major institutional employers include the FNSB, Fort Wainwright, Eielson AFB, UAF, and regional health care providers. According to the U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns, the Borough supported approximately 26,009 private-sector jobs across 2,576 employer establishments in 2023, with a total annual payroll of approximately $1.7 billion. The civilian labor force participation rate is estimated at 57 percent of the population age 16 years and older. In addition to employer-based jobs, the Borough also contains more than 6,800 nonemployer businesses, reflecting a significant presence of small businesses and independent contractors within the local economy18. 18 Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-13 Page 126 of 1055 Retail trade and service industries play an important role in the regional economy. Retail sales within the Borough totaled approximately $2.1 billion in 2022, reflecting the community’s role as the primary commercial and distribution center for Interior Alaska. Transportation and warehousing activities further support regional supply chains serving rural communities, military installations, and resource development projects.19 These economic characteristics influence community resilience, local capacity, and the feasibility of implementing mitigation strategies and actions, as further described in Chapters 10 and 11. 3.3.3 Military The U.S. military has operated Fort Wainwright Army Post and Eielson AFB since the 1940s, beginning with World War II cold-weather testing and strategic defense missions.20 Fort Wainwright borders the City of Fairbanks to the east and currently serves as the home to the 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 11th Airborne Division (Arctic), along with multiple support units, reserve components, and tenant organizations, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Alaska Fire Service.21 Eielson AFB, located approximately ten miles southeast of the City of North Pole, is home to the 354th Fighter Wing and hosts the 18th Aggressor Squadron, 353rd Combat Training Squadron, and the 168th Air Refueling Wing of the Alaska Air National Guard.22 Together, these installations provide mission support, joint operations training, Arctic operations training, and cold-weather testing for U.S. Army and Air Force missions in Alaska and abroad, primarily within the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC).23 A significant increase in military operations began in 2020 with the beddown of two squadrons of F-35A Lightning II aircraft at Eielson AFB.24 The expansion brought an estimated 3,000 to 3,300 additional military personnel, contractors, and family members to the region, many of whom reside in the City of North Pole and surrounding rural areas 19 U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts: Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska. 20 U.S. Army Alaska. History of Fort Wainwright (formerly Ladd Field); U.S. Air Force, Eielson AFB History. 21 U.S. Army Garrison Alaska, Fort Wainwright official installation overview and tenant organization listings. 22 U.S. Air Force, Eielson Air Force Base Fact Sheets; Alaska Air National Guard unit descriptions. 23 Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC), U.S. Department of Defense training overview and FAQs. 24 U.S. Air Force, Eielson AFB F-35A Beddown Completion Announcements, 2020–2022. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-14 Page 127 of 1055 between North Pole and Eielson AFB, contributing to local housing demand and population growth.25 Fort Wainwright manages approximately 1.5 to 1.6 million acres of training land, supporting a wide range of maneuver, aviation, live-fire, and Arctic training activities across Interior Alaska.26 Eielson AFB operates within the JPARC, a training area encompassing approximately 67,000 square miles of airspace, recognized as the largest fully instrumented air combat training range in the world.27 The economic impact of these two installations on the FNSB and the State of Alaska is substantial. According to the Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation, Fort Wainwright generated approximately $1.1 billion in direct economic activity to the Borough in 2024, while Eielson AFB contributed approximately $765.5 million.28 Together, these installations support more than 30,000 military personnel, family members, civilian employees, contractors, and retirees, representing a significant share of the Borough’s population and economic base.29 The presence of major military installations contributes to population distribution, infrastructure demand, and economic stability, all of which influence vulnerability and risk as evaluated in Chapter 4. 3.3.4 K-12 Education The FNSB School District (FNSBSD) operates 33 public schools, serving students in grades PK-12, with a total district enrollment of approximately 11,200-11,900 students in the 2024- 2025 school year.30 The district’s schools include a mix of elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as alternative and school-of-choice programs, including magnet and correspondence-based options.31 In addition to public schools, approximately seven private elementary and secondary schools operate within the Borough, supplementing district offerings. A variety of homeschool, 25 Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Planning; Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development (ADOLWD), population and housing impact analyses related to the F-35 beddown. 26 U.S. Army Garrison Alaska, Fort Wainwright Natural Resources and Training Lands Overview. 27 U.S. Department of Defense; JPARC official publications describing range size and capabilities. 28 Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation (FEDC), Annual Economic Analysis, 2024. 29 Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development; FEDC regional demographic and economic summaries. 30 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Fairbanks North Star Borough School District Profile, 2024–2025. 31 Fairbanks North Star Borough School District (FNSBSD). District Facts and School Programs. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-15 Page 128 of 1055 correspondence, and distance-learning programs are also available to families, reflecting both geographic distance and parental choice within Interior Alaska.32 Over the past decade, the district has experienced a sustained decline in enrollment, mirroring broader demographic trends in the Borough, including population stagnation, declining birth rates, and an aging population. District enrollment decreased from approximately 14,700 students in the early 2010s to about 11,200 students by the mid- 2020s, a reduction of roughly 24 percent.33 In response to continued declines in enrollment and associated fiscal constraints, the School Board approved a school consolidation plan in February 2025, resulting in the closure of Pearl Creek Elementary School, Midnight Sun Elementary School, and Two Rivers School at the conclusion of the 2024–2025 school year34. Because of its concentration of educational infrastructure, training programs, and support services, Fairbanks functions as a regional education hub for Interior Alaska, serving students not only from the Borough but also from surrounding communities, military installations, rural areas, and remote villages throughout the region35. Educational facilities represent critical infrastructure and are included in the risk assessment of critical facilities and services in Chapter 4. 3.3.5 Post-Secondary and Research Institutions The UAF was founded in 1917 as the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines and serves as the state’s primary research university.36 Today UAF hosts seven major research units, including the Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station; Arctic Region Supercomputing Center (ARSC); Geophysical Institute; Institute of Marine Science; Institute of Arctic Biology; Institute of Northern Engineering; and International Arctic Research Center (IARC).37 32 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development (DEED). Private, Homeschool, and Correspondence School Listings. 33 Fairbanks North Star Borough School District; Alaska Public Media (KUAC). Historical Enrollment Trends and Reporting. 34 Fairbanks North Star Borough School District. School Consolidation Plan and Board Actions, February 2025. 35 Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development; Interior Alaska education services context. 36 University of Alaska Fairbanks. Institutional History. 37 University of Alaska Fairbanks. Research Units and Centers. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-16 Page 129 of 1055 UAF is a federally designated Land-Grant, Sea-Grant, and Space-Grant Institution, and operates the Poker Flat Research Range, located north of Fairbanks. Poker Flat is the only university-owned scientific rocket launching facility in the United States and the world’s largest land-based high-latitude sounding rocket range.38 Additional major educational and cultural assets located on the UAF campus include the Alaska Native Language Center and the University of Alaska Museum of the North, both of which serve statewide roles in research, preservation, and public education.39 These institutions contribute to regional capacity for hazard research, data analysis, and mitigation planning, supporting ongoing risk assessment and resilience efforts. 3.3.6 Research and Development The research in energy, engineering, climate change, and biomedicine conducted at UAF is of great importance to the FNSB and the State of Alaska. UAF serves as the state’s primary research university, with extensive research across science and engineering disciplines and a broad Arctic research mission.40 These research areas, combined with UAF’s traditional strengths in geophysics, oceans and fisheries sciences, and natural hazards, contribute to its national research profile. Recent Forbes listings place UAF at approximately #346 overall, #217 in research universities, and #82 in the West region.41 UAF receives substantial research funding. Recent University data indicated approximately $200-246 million annually in research expenditures.42 The revenue generated by research at UAF supports employment, regional economic activity, and workforce development, and contributes significantly to the local and statewide economy through research spending, grants, and associated jobs.43 In 2010, UAF revitalized the Office of Intellectual Property and Commercialization (OIPC) to protect and promote university research and technologies. OIPC supports technology transfer, working with researchers and industry partners, licensing, and commercializing 38 Poker Flat Research Range (UAF). Facility Overview. 39 University of Alaska Fairbanks. Campus Cultural and Research Institutions. 40 University of Alaska Fairbanks. UAF Research Overview and Expenditures. 41 Forbes. University of Alaska Fairbanks Rankings. 42 University of Alaska Fairbanks. UAF Research Overview and Expenditures. 43 University of Alaska Fairbanks. UAF Research Overview and Expenditures. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-17 Page 130 of 1055 innovations, helping move research discoveries into practical applications with societal and economic benefits.44 The Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC) is a nonprofit organization located in Fairbanks that researches and develops energy-efficient, durable, and healthy building technologies for cold regions. The center was established in 1999 by the Alaska State Home Builders Association to address the challenges of construction in Alaska’s extreme environments.45 The CCHRC research facility, located on the UAF campus, was completed in September 2006 and serves as a testing and demonstration site (four-home Sustainable Village) for cold-climate building systems, including applied research and training programs.46 The ARSC operated on the UAF campus as a high-performance computing facility supporting research across Alaska and the Arctic. ARSC provided advanced computational capabilities for modeling and analysis, including applications such as climate modeling, sea ice analysis, volcanic ash tracking, and tsunami forecasting.⁶ However, it should be noted that ARSC ceased major operations after 2015, following the loss of Department of Defense (DOD) funding, and should be described as a former or legacy research center, not a currently active “top-level” facility.47 3.3.7 Agriculture In the last decade, the Tanana Valley has been one of Alaska’s most productive agricultural regions, particularly for crop production in Interior Alaska. The region supports a variety of agricultural activities made possible by long summer daylight hours and favorable soil, and it has long served as a center for agricultural research and development in the state.48 Common crops grown in the region include grass, hay, barley, oats, potatoes, and vegetables such as lettuce, carrots, cabbage, along with other cold-tolerant crops adapted to Interior Alaska conditions.49 Livestock production includes beef, pork, sheep, dairy products, and 44 University of Alaska Fairbanks. Office of Intellectual Property and Commercialization. 45 Cold Climate Housing Research Center. Mission and History. 46 University of Alaska Fairbanks. CCHRC Facility Description. 47 Arctic Region Supercomputing Center. Program Description and Operations. 48 UAF Cooperative Extension / Alaska agricultural research and Interior Alaska crop production descriptions; Tanana Valley agricultural activity and crop types. 49 UAF Cooperative Extension / Alaska agricultural research and Interior Alaska crop production descriptions; Tanana Valley agricultural activity and crop types. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-18 Page 131 of 1055 wool, and greenhouse operations produce vegetables and ornamental plants throughout the year, helping extend the short growing season50. Despite local agricultural production, the majority of Alaska’s food supply is imported. Approximately 95 percent of food purchased in Alaska originates from outside the state, making the state’s food system highly dependent on marine and surface transportation networks and vulnerable to supply chain disruptions51. The dependence on imported food supplies highlights vulnerability to supply chain disruptions and infrastructure interruptions, which are considered in broader resilience planning efforts. 3.3.8 Forestry The Tanana Valley State Forest covers approximately 1.8 million acres and is the largest state forest in Alaska, extending across much of the Tanana River basin in Interior Alaska.52 A substantial portion of the forest lies with the FNSB. The Borough represents an important local market for wood products, although most forest- product activity in the region occurs on a small scale. Local mills primarily produce rough lumber and specialty wood products, including house logs, paneling, and flooring.53 50 UAF Cooperative Extension / Alaska agricultural research and Interior Alaska crop production descriptions; Tanana Valley agricultural activity and crop types. 51 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). “Partnerships Build Healthy Soil and Food Security in Fairbanks, Alaska.” January 30, 2026 and Alaska Food Supply and Production (2025). Alaska Supply Chain Analysis (GeoSummit / FEMA-related research). 52 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry & Fire Protection. Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan (2025 Revision). Alaska Department of Natural Resources / Division of Forestry. Alaska State Forests Overview. 53 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry & Fire Protection. Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan (2025 Revision). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-19 Page 132 of 1055 Figure 3-5: Map of Tanana Valley Forest Figure 3-5 illustrates the extent of the Tanana Valley State Forest, demonstrating the proximity of forested areas to developed communities and the associated wildfire risk context. High heating costs in Interior Alaska contribute to a significant demand for firewood. Commercial and personal use permits for timber and firewood harvesting are available through the Alaska Division of Forestry and Fire Protection (DFFP), and the FNSB also issues permits for firewood cutting on Borough lands.54 3.3.9 Mining The FNSB serves as a staging and service hub for mineral exploration and development in Interior Alaska. Major mining operations, including Fort Knox, Pogo, and Usibelli Coal Mine (UCM), are located within a reasonable logistical distance of Fairbanks (generally within 54 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry & Fire Protection. Tanana Valley State Forest Management Plan (2025 Revision). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-20 Page 133 of 1055 approximately 25 to 220 miles), and their proximity supports the Borough’s role as a center for labor, equipment, and support services.55 Infrastructure improvements, including road and air access, enhance the productivity and viability of these operations and increase access to more remote mineral resources across Interior Alaska. The relationship between infrastructure and mining development is well established in Alaska’s resource economy.56 In 1997, Alaskan gold production from hard rock (lode) mines surpassed placer production for the first time in decades, reflecting a shift toward large-scale industrial mining. The Fort Knox Gold Mine, located approximately 25 miles northeast of Fairbanks, began production in the mid-1990s and remains one of Alaska’s largest gold producers. It was constructed in 1995 and purchased by the Kinross Corporation in 1998.57 It produces approximately 290,000-450,000 ounces of gold annually in recent years (depending on ore and processing conditions).58 Starting in 2023, the Mahn Choh Mine opened in Tetlin, Alaska, as a joint venture (Peak Gold) between Kinross Gold Corporation and Contango, ORE, Inc. Tetlin is located approximately 240 miles southeast of Fairbanks, outside the borough.59 In conjunction with Black Gold Transport, the ore from this mine is trucked to the mill facility at the Fort Knox Mine. Trucks operate 24/7, hauling approximately 60 round-trip loads per day through the borough. The specialized B-train trucks weigh 82.5 tons per vehicle while the payload weight is about 50 tones. This operation is expected to continue through 2027 or 2028.60 Pogo Mine, owned by Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., Ltd., is located approximately 90-140 miles southeast of Fairbanks, began operating in early 2006, and is a major underground gold mine.61 The current annual production level is approximately 280,000 ounces of gold.62 55 Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Fort Knox Mine Project Description and Operations. Northern Star Resources. Pogo Mine Operations and Production Data. 56 Alaska Resource Development Council (RDC). Alaska Mining Industry Overview. 57 Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Fort Knox Mine Project Description and Operations. 58 North of 60 Mining News. Fort Knox Production Levels and Output Data (2025). 59 Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Mahn Choh Project Description. 60 Kinross Mahn Choh. https://manhchoh.com/trucking/ 61 Northern Star Resources. Pogo Mine Operations and Production Data. 62 Northern Star Resources. Pogo Mine Operations and Production Data. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-21 Page 134 of 1055 The UCM, located in the Denali Borough and headquartered in Fairbanks, has operated since the 1940s and remains Alaska’s only operating coal mine.63 Annual mine production has grown from 10,000 tons in 1943 to an average of approximately 1.2-2 million tons of coal per year.64 UCM is supported by the most modern mining equipment and state-of-the-art engineering. Today, UCM supplies coal to six Interior Alaska power plants and, over the years, has exported coal to Chile, South Korea, Japan, and several other destinations in the Pacific Rim.65 Mining contributes several billion dollars annually to Alaska’s economy and represents a significant share of the state’s resource-based economic activity.66 Within the Borough, Federal labor statistics indicate that during the third quarter of 2025, approximately 1,233 to 1,290 employees worked in the Natural Resources and Mining sector within the FNSB across approximately 52 establishments. Workers in this sector earned an average weekly wage of about $1,851 (approximately $8,000 per month), reflecting the relatively high wages typical of resource-extraction industries.67 Mining activity in Interior Alaska is strongly tied to major gold and coal operations, including Fort Knox, Pogo, and Usibelli, which provide regional employment, contracting, and secondary economic benefits.68 Increased global demand for minerals continues to drive exploration and development activity in Alaska, particularly within the Interior Alaska/Fairbanks mineral district, which is recognized for its gold deposits and resource potential.69 The Fort Knox mine has undergone expansions over time and continues to evolve with new deposits and processing improvements, which have expanded its land holdings by 709 acres in 2018. This expansion, along with changes in extraction technology, is anticipated to potentially extend the life of the mine to 2028.70 63 Alaska Mining and Resource Development Summaries / Industry Reports (Usibelli Coal Mine and Interior mining activity). 64 Alaska Mining and Resource Development Summaries / Industry Reports (Usibelli Coal Mine and Interior mining activity). 65 Alaska Mining and Resource Development Summaries / Industry Reports (Usibelli Coal Mine and Interior mining activity). 66 Alaska Business Magazine. Mining Industry Economic Contribution in Alaska. 67 Alaska Resource Development Council (RDC). Alaska Mining Industry Overview. 68 Lisa Putnam, V.P. Public Relations, Usibelli Coal Mine 69 Alaska Mining and Resource Development Summaries / Industry Reports (Usibelli Coal Mine and Interior mining activity). 70 Brenna Schaake, External Affairs Superintendent, Kinross Fort Knox. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-22 Page 135 of 1055 3.3.10 Oil and Gas Development At the forefront of nearly all economic activities in the FNSB is the availability of a reasonably priced energy source. With the continued decline in oil production from the large North Slope fields, there has been sustained interest in developing and marketing Alaska’s extensive natural gas reserves. There are approximately 35 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of proven natural gas reserves in the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thompson area, representing one of the largest conventional gas accumulations in North America.71 A significant portion of this gas is currently reinjected into oil recovery due to the lack of large-scale transportation infrastructure to deliver it to market.72 In addition to known reserves, the federal government estimates that hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas may exist in Alaska’s North Slope region. Estimates of unexplored conventional resources exceed 200 tcf, and even larger quantities may exist in unconventional reservoirs such as shale formations and natural gas hydrates, collectively representing substantial energy potential. 73 The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) historically supplied crude oil to two refineries in the Fairbanks area: Flint Hills Resources and Petro Star.74 The Flint Hills refinery in North Pole ceased crude oil processing in 2014 due to economic and environmental factors and now operates as a fuel storage and distribution facility.75 The Petro Star refinery, located in North Pole, continues to operate and has a processing capacity of approximately 22,000 barrels per day, producing refined products such as kerosene, diesel, and jet fuel.76 Petro Star distributes fuel throughout the Interior and Northern Alaska, supplying remote communities, military installations, and major industrial users, including mining operations and oil field support activities.77 71 Alaska Gasline Development Corporation. Alaska’s Natural Gas Supply. Alaska Department of Natural Resources / Alaska State Legislature. North Slope Gas Resource Estimates and Assessments. 72 Alaska LNG Project / Industry sources. Prudhoe Bay Gas Reinjection and Production Characteristics. 73 Alaska Department of Natural Resources / Alaska State Legislature. North Slope Gas Resource Estimates and Assessments. 74 Trans-Alaska Pipeline System overview and infrastructure context. 75 Oil & Gas Journal; Center for Land Use Interpretation. Flint Hills Refinery Closure (2014). 76 Petro Star Refinery Capacity Data. 77 Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Petro Star Operations and Distribution. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-23 Page 136 of 1055 3.3.11 Tourism Fairbanks serves as a gateway for travelers from Asia, Europe, and the continental United States and is an important tourism hub for Interior Alaska. Tourism activity in the region has shown overall stability with periods of strong growth in recent years, particularly in winter visitation and airport traffic.78 Borough bed tax revenues have increased significantly in recent years, with reports indicating increases exceeding 20 percent year-over-year in 2024, reflecting recovery and growth in visitor spending.79 Lodging demand has remained relatively steady, with hotel occupancy generally averaging in the mid- to upper-60 percent range (approximately 67-69 percent) depending on the reporting period.80 Short-term rental supply has expanded substantially, with listings increasing by 20 percent or more in recent periods, reflecting growth demand and investment in tourism accommodations.81 These indicators suggest continued strength and gradual growth in tourism activity within the FNSB, although some datasets indicate variability tied to broader national and international travel trends.82 While most visitors arrive during the summer months, Fairbanks has increasingly developed itself as a destination for winter tourism, which has shown particularly strong performance in recent years.83 Winter tourism in Fairbanks benefits from the proximity of cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, dog mushing, winter festivals, and hot springs, along with specialized visitor experiences centered on Arctic conditions.84 The World Ice Art Championships, held annually in late winter, attract artists and visitors from around the world and are recognized as one of the largest ice sculpting events 78 Alaska Public Media (KUAC). Fairbanks Tourism Report and Visitor Trends, 2025. Alaska Business Magazine. Fairbanks Sees Record Winter Visitation (2023–2024). 79 Explore Fairbanks. Tourism Works for Fairbanks (2024 Q1 Report). Fairbanks North Star Borough Finance Committee. Bed Tax Revenue Increase Report, 2025. 80 Explore Fairbanks. Tourism Works for Fairbanks (2024 Q1 Report). Explore Fairbanks. Tourism Works Mid-Year Report (2024). 81 Alaska Public Media (KUAC). Fairbanks Tourism Report and Visitor Trends, 2025. Explore Fairbanks. Tourism Works for Fairbanks (2024 Q1 Report). Fairbanks North Star Borough Economic Development data and local tourism indicators summarized in regional economic reports, 2024. 82 Alaska Public Media (KUAC). Fairbanks Tourism Report and Visitor Trends, 2025. 83 Alaska Business Magazine. Fairbanks Sees Record Winter Visitation (2023–2024). 84 Explore Fairbanks. Winter Tourism Activities and Visitor Guide. [issuu.com] FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-24 Page 137 of 1055 globally.85 Additionally, Fairbanks is widely regarded as one of the premier locations in Alaska for viewing the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights), contributing to increased winter visitation and tourism activity.86 3.4 Changes in Development and Effects on Vulnerability (Since 2021 Update) Since the adoption of the 2021 MJ-HMP, participating jurisdictions have experienced incremental development and redevelopment that are consistent with regional growth patterns within the Borough. Overall, development has been moderate in scale and has generally occurred within or adjacent to previously developed areas, including both incorporated municipalities and unincorporated areas of the Borough. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Within the unincorporated areas of the FNSB, development since 2021 has primarily consisted of low-density residential construction, infill development, and infrastructure improvements. Much of this development has occurred in areas already subject to hazard exposure, including wildfire-prone wildland-urban interface areas and locations affected by permafrost degradation and ground stability concerns. As a result, overall exposure to hazards such as wildfire, ground failure, and infrastructure vulnerability has remained steady or increased slightly where development has expanded into previously undeveloped or minimally developed areas. The Borough’s limited regulatory authority over building codes in unincorporated areas continues to influence vulnerability, with mitigation relying heavily on planning, infrastructure improvements, and voluntary measures. City of Fairbanks Development within the City of Fairbanks since 2021 has largely taken the form of infill development, redevelopment, and upgrades to existing infrastructure and public facilities. Because development is concentrated within an already urbanized area with established infrastructure and regulatory controls, including building code enforcement and floodplain management, changes in vulnerability have been relatively minimal. However, redevelopment and continued use of aging infrastructure in areas exposed to flooding, severe weather, and seismic risk pose ongoing vulnerability concerns. Integration of 85 Explore Fairbanks / Ice Alaska. World Ice Art Championships Overview. 86 Alaska Business Magazine. Fairbanks Sees Record Winter Visitation (2023–2024). Explore Fairbanks. Winter Tourism Activities and Visitor Guide. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-25 Page 138 of 1055 mitigation into capital projects and building code enforcement helps reduce potential increases in vulnerability associated with redevelopment. City of North Pole Development in the City of North Pole since 2021 has been limited and primarily consists of small-scale residential and commercial development, along with infrastructure maintenance and improvements. Similar to Fairbanks, development has generally occurred within existing developed areas where building codes and permitting processes are in place. As a result, vulnerability to hazards such as flooding, severe weather, and seismic events has remained relatively stable. Continued enforcement of building codes and participation in mitigation planning support an incremental reduction of risk over time. Overall, while no large-scale or rapid development changes have significantly altered the risk landscape since the 2021 plan, incremental development in hazard-prone areas, particularly in the wildland-urban interface and areas affected by permafrost degradation, continues to influence long-term vulnerability. The integration of mitigation actions into planning, infrastructure investments, and regulatory processes remains critical to managing these risks. These development patterns are reflected in the exposure and vulnerability analysis presented in Chapter 4, which continues to identify wildfire, severe weather, flooding, ground failure, and infrastructure interdependencies as key drivers of risk across all jurisdictions. 3.5 Transportation The transportation system within the FNSB includes air, rail, and road networks that provide critical connectivity for residents, commerce, emergency response, and access to remote areas. These systems support regional supply chains and are essential for maintaining continuity of operations during and after hazard events. Transportation infrastructure is evaluated as part of the broader infrastructure vulnerability assessment in Chapter 4. 3.5.1 Air Transportation Air transportation is central to the Alaskan economy due to the state’s vast geography and limited reach of road and rail systems, particularly in rural and remote areas. As a result, FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-26 Page 139 of 1055 aviation plays a significantly more prominent role in Alaska’s transportation system than in most other U.S. states.87 International and domestic air cargo and passenger service are the primary components of aviation’s role in the FNSB economy. Fairbanks International Airport (FIA) serves as a key regional hub for Interior Alaska, supporting passenger travel, freight movement, and access to remote communities. Key operational statistics are summarized in Table 3-6.88 Table 3-6: Fairbanks International Airport Statistics (2019–2024) Landed Calendar Passenger Cargo Weight (lbs) Throughput Year Enplanements (Operations) 2019 583,075 142,726,686 17,170 2020 395,367 131,341,307 20,468 2021 450,694 139,228,499 17,834 2022 513,160 177,386,502 18,502 2023 548,679 138,209,050 17,429 2024* 574,000 (est.) 140,000,000 (est.) 17,500 (est.) Source: Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities; Fairbanks International Airport statistics; Explore Fairbanks tourism reports. Values for 2024 are estimated based on recent trends. Table 3-6 demonstrates the scale of passenger traffic, cargo movement, and aircraft operations, illustrating the airport’s critical role in regional transportation and supply chains. Many communities in Interior and Northern Alaska are not accessible by road, and therefore, access to healthcare services, including medical and dental care, as well as mail delivery, food, fuel, and other critical supplies.89 From FIA, it is approximately 50 minutes by air to Anchorage, around three to four hours to Seattle, approximately 6.5 to 7.5 hours to Tokyo, around seven to nine hours to New York (with connections), and roughly nine to eleven hours to London, depending on the route and connections. 87 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF); FAA Alaska aviation system analyses; general Alaska transportation system characteristics. 88 Fairbanks International Airport; Alaska aviation and regional transportation system descriptions. 89 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF); FAA Alaska aviation system analyses; general Alaska transportation system characteristics. Fairbanks International Airport; Alaska aviation and regional transportation system descriptions. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-27 Page 140 of 1055 3.5.2 Rail Transportation The Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) was acquired from the federal government on January 5, 1985, and is currently an independently managed corporation owned by the State of Alaska.90 The Alaska railroad mainline extends approximately 470 miles from the all‐ season, deep‐water port of Seward to its northern terminus in Fairbanks. From Fairbanks, a branch line extends 28 miles east to North Pole, serving industrial areas including fuel facilities and Eielson AFB.91 ARRC provides both passenger and freight service to the FNSB. Passenger service is primarily seasonal (summer) and oriented toward the tourism industry.92 Freight service plays a critical role in regional supply chains. Coal is transported from the UCM near Healy to power plants in Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright, and Eielson AFB, and petroleum products, including jet fuel, are transported between Interior Alaska and Anchorage.93 Phase I of the Northern Rail Extension Project, including construction of a major bridge over the Tanana River near Salcha, was completed in August 2014.94 This bridge is a key component of a proposed multi-phase extension intended to expand rail service deeper into Interior Alaska. Planned future phases would extend rail service approximately 80 miles southeast toward Delta Junction, subject to funding and project development.95 Rail transportation supports regional supply chains and critical infrastructure movement, contributing to overall system resilience. 3.5.3 Road Transportation All major highways in interior Alaska converge at Fairbanks, making it a central surface transportation hub for the region. The Alaska Highway connects Interior Alaska to Canada and the continental United States, terminating at Delta Junction, where it meets the Richardson Highway, which continues north to Fairbanks. The Richardson Highway, 90 Alaska Railroad Corporation. History and System Overview (Federal Transfer and System Description). 91 Alaska Railroad Corporation; Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. Fairbanks and Eielson Branch Line Information. 92 Alaska Railroad Corporation. Freight and Passenger Services Overview. 93 Alaska Railroad Corporation. Freight and Passenger Services Overview. Alaska Resource Development Council; Alaska energy and transportation supply chain descriptions. 94 Alaska Railroad Corporation; Alaska DOT&PF. Northern Rail Extension Project and Tanana River Bridge (2014). 95 Alaska Railroad Corporation; Alaska DOT&PF. Northern Rail Extension Project and Tanana River Bridge (2014). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-28 Page 141 of 1055 originally developed from a historic trail used during the early gold rush, connects Fairbanks to the port of Valdez.96 The George Parks Highway (Parks Highway) extends approximately 300-360 miles south from Fairbanks to Wasilla, where it connects to the regional highway system leading to Anchorage. The highway was constructed in the late 1960s and early 1970s to shorten travel time between Fairbanks and Anchorage and to improve access to Denali National Park.97 The Steese Highway extends north from Fairbanks to Circle and the Yukon River, and the Chena Hot Springs Road branches east from this corridor. The Elliott Highway, which intersects the Steese Highway near Fox, extends northwest to Livengood, Minto, and Manley Hot Springs, and connects with the Dalton Highway, which continues north to the North Slope oil fields at Prudhoe Bay.98 There are several hundred miles of state-maintained highways and roads within the Borough. As a second-class borough, the FNSB has limited road powers, which may only be exercised within an established Road Service Area (RSA). These RSAs are established by voters. Within these areas, authority generally extends only to the ownership and maintenance of public roads.99 There are currently over 100 established RSAs within the Borough, responsible for maintaining local roads within their boundaries. Several other jurisdictions and agencies are responsible for roadway ownership and maintenance within the Borough:  The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) maintains state highways and other state-owned roads.  The City of Fairbanks maintains roads within its municipal boundaries.  The City of North Pole maintains roads within its municipal boundaries.  The UAF maintains roads located on the university campus. 96 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). Interior Alaska Highway System Descriptions. 97 Alaska DOT&PF; Parks Highway history and construction records. 98 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). Interior Alaska Highway System Descriptions. Alaska DOT&PF; Parks Highway history and construction records. 99 Alaska Statutes; Fairbanks North Star Borough Public Works / Road Service Area governance documents. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-29 Page 142 of 1055  Roadways located within Fort Wainwright and Eielson AFB are maintained by the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force, respectively. In addition to these publicly maintained roads, there are numerous private and subdivision roads within the Borough that are not under a formal public maintenance authority. Road conditions on these roads vary, and some may be seasonally inaccessible. For planning purposes, roads within the Borough are classified into several functional categories, including arterial, major collector, minor collector, local roads, and alleys. These classifications are used for transportation planning and do not necessarily reflect ownership or maintenance responsibility. The road network plays a vital role in emergency access, evacuation, and response and is a key component of infrastructure vulnerability analysis in Chapter 4. 3.6 Electric and Utilities Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), incorporated in 1946 in Fairbanks, distributes power to Interior Alaska communities, including Fairbanks, Delta, Nenana, Healy, and Cantwell.100 GVEA operates an extensive electric system consisting of more than 3,200 miles of transmission and distribution lines and approximately 40 substations, serving tens of thousands of Interior residents.101 GVEA generates electricity using a mix of coal, oil, and renewable energy sources, and is interconnected with other Railbelt utilities through the Alaska grid system, including the Anchorage-Fairbanks Intertie.102 The utility has made significant efforts to diversify its energy portfolio through the development of renewable energy projects.103 In 2012, GVEA constructed the Eva Creek Wind Farm, a 24.6-megawatt (MW) facility near Healy, which remains Alaska's largest wind project.104 The utility operates its renewable energy program (Sustainable Natural Alternative Power (SNAP)), which supports distributed renewable generation from local producers.105 100 Golden Valley Electric Association. Corporate History and Overview. 101 Golden Valley Electric Association. System Description and Operations. 102 Golden Valley Electric Association. System Description and Operations. 103 Golden Valley Electric Association. Renewable Energy Programs and Initiatives. 104 Golden Valley Electric Association. Renewable Energy Programs and Initiatives. Alaska Energy Authority / Energy Data. Eva Creek Wind Farm (24.6 MW). 105 Golden Valley Electric Association. System Description and Operations. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-30 Page 143 of 1055 GVEA also operates one of the largest rechargeable battery energy storage systems (BESS) in the world, capable of providing approximately 27 MW of power for up to 15 minutes, helping stabilize the grid and prevent short-term outages.106 The Interior Gas Utility (IGU) was established in 2012 to deliver lower-cost natural gas to Interior Alaska. IGU has developed an expanding distribution system and constructed a 5.25- million-gallon LNG storage facility in Fairbanks to improve energy reliability and supply.107 The utility continues to expand its infrastructure to serve additional customers in the region.108 Aurora Enter LLC owns and operates a coal-fired power plant in Fairbanks that produces electricity, steam heat, and hot water for downtown customers. The facility supplies electricity to GVEA and operates a district heating system providing steam heat through an underground distribution network serving downtown Fairbanks. The plant has four steam turbines fueled by coal and one oil-fired electrical generator. In 2019, the steam heat served approximately 211 customers in the downtown area through an underground district system comprised of 15 miles of supply and return pipes.109 Fairbanks Sewer and Water (FSW) is the parent company for several utility subsidiaries, including College Utilities Corporation and Golden Heart Utilities, which together serve more than 8,500 customer accounts and over 55,000 people in the Fairbanks area.110 These utilities provide essential water and wastewater services and are regulated by the State of Alaska.111 The water treatment plant is in downtown Fairbanks and produces more than a billion gallons of treated water annually from four wells along the Chena River. The regional wastewater treatment plant is in South Fairbanks and accepts approximately 1.8 billion gallons of wastewater annually from the university, the army base, and commercial septage haulers. Connected to each of these plants are approximately 150 miles of water mains and 113 miles of sewer mains buried beneath the roads, serving residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional customers in the Fairbanks urban center. 112 106 Golden Valley Electric Association. System Description and Operations. 107 Interior Gas Utility. Natural Gas Supply and Distribution System Information. Petroleum News; AIDEA Interior Energy Project. 5.25-Million-Gallon LNG Storage Facility. 108 Interior Gas Utility. Natural Gas Supply and Distribution System Information. 109 Aurora Energy, emails from Plant Engineer to EM staff Jan 03-05/2019 110 Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce. Golden Heart Utilities and College Utilities Overview. 111 Nexus Water Group. Fairbanks Water and Wastewater Utility Services. 112 Fairbanks Sewer and Water, email from Director of Operations to Emergency Manager 2/27/2019 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-31 Page 144 of 1055 The City of North Pole’s utility system has expanded in recent years in response to groundwater contamination associated with the former refinery.113 These improvements have included the expansion of municipal water service to previously unserved areas, which now includes 64 miles of buried water mains and 1,475 service connections. The North Pole Utility’s wastewater service is available only within the city limits and comprises approximately 14 miles of sewer mains with approximately 475 service connections.114 3.7 Health Care Fairbanks is a regional hub for medical services for the Interior and northern half of the state. Local hospitals and health clinics within the FNSB include Fairbanks Memorial Hospital (Foundation Health Partners), Bassett Army Community Hospital at Fort Wainwright, Chief Andrew Isaac Health Center (CAIHC), Tanana Valley Health Clinic, Interior Community Health Center (ICHC), and the Fairbanks Public Health Center. Additionally, there are many smaller clinics, urgent care centers, and healthcare practices within the Borough. Foundation Health Partners (FHP) is a community‑owned and operated integrated healthcare system serving Interior Alaska. FHP oversees Fairbanks Memorial Hospital (FMH), multiple Hospital‑Based Clinics, Denali Center, and a comprehensive Home Services Program. FHP maintains comprehensive emergency operations, continuity of operations, and recovery plans across all components of the system to ensure continued access to patient care during any emergency.115 FMH is a 152‑bed acute care facility providing a full spectrum of inpatient and outpatient services. Key capabilities include Intensive Care Unit (ICU) services, seven operating suites, and a Level IV Trauma Center–designated Emergency Department. FHP manages several specialty hospital-based clinics that support both routine and complex care needs. These include a 1st Care walk-in clinic, cardiology, cancer treatment, behavioral health, pediatrics, senior care, and many more. FMH operates the only civilian hospital in Interior Alaska. Its 113 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. North Pole Water System Expansion and Contamination Response. 114 North Pole Utilities, emails from North Pole Fire Chief 2/28/2019 115 April and May 2026 conversations with Kelley Scott, Emergency Manager and Safety Program Manager, and Keith Fehr, Facility Operations Director and Safety Officer, Foundation Health Partners. 2024-2025 FHP Emergency Management Committee Meetings. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-32 Page 145 of 1055 service area extends across the region north of the Alaska Range, making it a critical healthcare hub for remote and rural communities.116 Attached to FMH, Denali Center is a 90‑bed facility providing comprehensive short‑term rehabilitation and long‑term skilled nursing care. It serves medically complex residents and supports continuity of care within the FHP system. Additionally, FHP’s Home Health and Hospice Programs deliver skilled nursing, therapy, and end‑of‑life care to patients in the Interior who reside within a 35‑mile radius of FMH.117 Bassett Army Community Hospital (BACH) on Fort Wainwright is the U.S. Army’s primary hospital in Interior Alaska and serves the region’s military population. The current facility is a 32-bed hospital, completed in 2006 and opened in 2007, providing a range of services, including primary and specialty care and emergency services, to DOD beneficiaries.118 The CAIHC is a major medical facility within the Borough serving Alaska Native populations through the TCC. The original facility opened in 2012.119 The center provides outpatient services to a large service area representing over 40 Interior Alaska villages.120 An expansion project began in April 2020 and was completed in 2022, adding approximately 108,000 square feet to the existing 95,000 square feet facility and significantly expanding services, including an ambulatory surgery center, diagnostic imaging, and specialty care.121 The expansion consists of a multi-story addition designed to support future growth, including unfinished space for future expansion.122 116 April and May 2026 conversations with Kelley Scott, Emergency Manager and Safety Program Manager, and Keith Fehr, Facility Operations Director and Safety Officer, Foundation Health Partners. 2024-2025 FHP Emergency Management Committee Meetings. 117 April and May 2026 conversations with Kelley Scott, Emergency Manager and Safety Program Manager, and Keith Fehr, Facility Operations Director and Safety Officer, Foundation Health Partners. 2024-2025 FHP Emergency Management Committee Meetings. 118 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / U.S. Army. Bassett Army Community Hospital construction and capacity (32-bed facility, completed 2006). Bassett Army Community Hospital. Facility history and opening of new hospital (2007). 119 Tanana Chiefs Conference / KUAC. Chief Andrew Isaac Health Center opening (2012) and service region. 120 Tanana Chiefs Conference / KUAC. Chief Andrew Isaac Health Center opening (2012) and service region. 121 Tanana Chiefs Conference; Architects Alaska. CAIHC expansion (108,000 sq ft, completed 2022). 122 Tanana Chiefs Conference / KUAC. Chief Andrew Isaac Health Center opening (2012) and service region. Tanana Chiefs Conference; Architects Alaska. CAIHC expansion (108,000 sq ft, completed 2022). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-33 Page 146 of 1055 In addition to clinical services, TCC operates a network of health and support facilities throughout the Interior, including residential treatment and support services, which complement outpatient medical care. The ICHC was established in 1993 and provides medical, dental, behavioral health, preventative, and educational services to residents of Interior Alaska.123 The clinic serves several thousand patients annually and provides tens of thousands of visits each year. The Fairbanks Public Health Center, operated by the Alaska Department of Health, Division of Public Health, provides services including immunizations, disease control, and community health nursing to the FNSB and surrounding communities.124 They serve residents through direct clinical services and community-based public health programs. 3.8 Emergency Services The FNSB completed a Comprehensive Review of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in 2011, which evaluated service delivery and system structure within the Borough. The FNSB operates a non‐areawide emergency medical services district, meaning EMS and fire services are not uniformly provided throughout the Borough. The cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, as well as Fort Wainwright and Eielson AFB, operate their own emergency service systems and are not part of the Borough EMS service area.125 Fire and EMS within the Borough are primarily provided through a system of contracts with fire departments and service-area organizations, rather than a single centralized department.126 The local emergency services system is composed of a mix of municipal, state, federal, and volunteer organizations, which are dispatched through the Fairbanks system and include the following127:  City of Fairbanks Fire Department (FFD)  City of Fairbanks Police Department (FPD) 123 Interior Community Health Center / IRS filings. Established 1993 and service scope. 124 Alaska Department of Health, Division of Public Health. Fairbanks Public Health Center services. 125 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Emergency Operations and EMS system structure. 126 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Emergency Operations and EMS system structure. 127 Fairbanks Emergency Communications Center. Agencies served and regional response network. City of Fairbanks. Local Fire and EMS Departments Listing. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-34 Page 147 of 1055  University Fire Department* (UFD)  University Police Department (UPD)  City of North Pole Fire Department (NPFD)  City of North Pole Police Department (NPPD)  Alaska State Troopers (AST)  Steese Area Volunteer Fire Department* (SVFD)  Chena‐Goldstream Fire and Rescue* (CGFR)  Salcha Fire and Rescue** (SFR)  Fairbanks International Airport Police and Fire Department (FIA-PD/FIA-FD)  North Star Volunteer Fire Department* (NSVFD)  Ester Volunteer Fire Department* (EVFD)  FNSB Emergency Operations Department  FNSB Hazardous Materials (HazMat) Response Team (HMRT) *Fire Service Area (FSA): Fire services in unincorporated portions of the Borough are organized into FSAs, which are governed locally and funded through property tax assessments. Residents and property owners within these areas pay mill rates to receive fire protection services. Areas outside established FSAs typically do not receive structural fire protection services, though wildland fire response may still be provided by state or federal agencies. **Salcha Fire and Rescue operates under a membership-based model in which property owners pay annual fees for fire protection. The department may respond to non-member incidents on a fee-for-service basis and is also contracted by the Borough to provide EMS services.128 128 Fairbanks Emergency Communications Center. Agencies served and regional response network. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-35 Page 148 of 1055 Emergency responders from Fort Wainwright and Eielson AFB regularly participate in mutual aid agreements, assisting with incidents across the Borough when requested.129 The Alaska National Guard may be activated during declared disasters under the authority of the Governor or the President, providing additional emergency response and logistical support. Across Interior Alaska, fire and EMS response relies on a combination of career personnel supplemented by volunteer responders. Many community‐based departments operate as non-profit or service-area organizations, particularly in rural and outlying areas.130 Historically, volunteer staffing provided strong coverage; however, like many jurisdictions nationwide, the Borough has experienced ongoing challenges recruiting and retaining volunteers in recent years.  To improve coordination and long-term planning, the Borough Assembly established the Regional Emergency Services Advisory Committee (RESAC). The committee’s purpose is to:  Review fire and EMS service delivery  Evaluate risk, demand, and financial resources  Recommend service levels, station locations, and deployment strategies  Conduct public outreach on service expectations  Provide long-term recommendations for equitable delivery service. This authority and scope are codified in the Borough ordinance.131 The Borough also has an EMS Advisory Committee, consisting of the EMS chiefs from contracted providers, the Borough Emergency Services Manager, and a representative from the Interior Region EMS Council. This structure supports operational coordination and medical oversight within the EMS system.132 129 Fairbanks Emergency Communications Center. Agencies served and regional response network. 130 Fairbanks Emergency Communications Center. Agencies served and regional response network. 131 Fairbanks North Star Borough Code. Regional Emergency Services Advisory Committee (Powers and Duties). 132 Interior Region EMS Council. Regional EMS coordination structure. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-36 Page 149 of 1055 There is one primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) or 911 center in the Borough:  Fairbanks Emergency Communications Center (FECC) – Primary dispatch center FECC operates 24/7 and dispatches services for more than 20 police, fire, and EMS agencies across the region.133 Additional (secondary/tertiary) dispatch or support centers include:  Alaska State Troopers (AST)  Fairbanks International Airport (FIA)  University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)  Fort Wainwright Emergency Services  Eielson AFB Emergency Services  Alaska Division Forestry and Fire Protection (DFFP) These agencies either maintain dispatch capability or coordinate through the regional emergency communications system.134 133 Fairbanks Emergency Communications Center. 911 dispatch operations and service coverage. [fairbanks.gov] 134 Fairbanks Emergency Communications Center. 911 dispatch operations and service coverage. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 3-37 Page 150 of 1055 4. Risk Assessment and Hazard Identification FEMA regulation 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2)(i) defines the process of risk assessment as: “…providing the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessment must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards. The risk assessment shall include a description of the type, location, and extent of all‐natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events [among others].” The risk assessment provides the foundation for identifying and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce losses from natural hazards. This process includes an evaluation of the type, location, and extent of hazards, past occurrences, and the probability of future hazard events.135 The FEMA Local Mitigation Planning Handbook further emphasizes that risk assessment should evaluate hazards, exposure, and vulnerability, which together determine the level of risk a community faces.136 Hazard impacts result from the interaction of three key systems:  Natural systems (e.g., atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and geologic systems)  Human systems (e.g., population, demographics, economics, and vulnerable populations)  The built environment (e.g., buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities) These systems are interconnected, and disruptions to one system, particularly critical infrastructure lifelines such as power, transportation, and communications, can have cascading impacts across the community.137 135 FEMA. 44 CFR §201.6 – Local Mitigation Plans (Risk Assessment Requirements). 136 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, with ongoing updates and policy memos). 137 FEMA. Community Lifelines Implementation Toolkit and National Response Framework (2019–present). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-1 Page 151 of 1055 Recent FEMA guidance also emphasizes the importance of considering future conditions, including climate variability, development patterns, and demographic changes, as these factors may influence the frequency and severity of hazard impacts over time.138 Community survey results, including input on hazard concerns, past impacts, and locally identified vulnerabilities (Appendix C), were used to validate and supplement hazard identification, risk assessment, and vulnerability analysis. 4.1 Components of Risk Assessment The risk assessment for the hazard mitigation plan consists of four primary components: 1) Hazard Identification 2) Hazard Profiling 3) Asset Inventory (Exposure) 4) Vulnerability and Loss Estimation These components are consistent with FEMA guidance, which defines risk assessment as an evaluation of hazards, the assets exposed to those hazards, and the potential impacts and losses that may result.139 Together, these components provide the foundation for understanding risk and prioritizing mitigation actions to reduce future hazard losses, as required under 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2).140 The results of this risk assessment provide the foundation for the mitigation strategy and actions presented in Chapters 10 and 11. 4.2 Future Conditions and Changing Risks Hazard risk in the FNSB is influenced not only by current conditions, but also by long-term environmental, climatic, and development trends that may alter hazard frequency, severity, and impacts over time. Consistent with FEMA guidance, this section summarizes key future conditions that may influence risk across the planning area. 138 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, with ongoing updates and policy memos). 139 FEMA. 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2) – Local Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Requirements. FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) 140 FEMA. 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2) – Local Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Requirements. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-2 Page 152 of 1055 Key considerations include:  Permafrost Thaw and Ground Instability: Warming temperatures are contributing to permafrost degradation across the region, resulting in increased ground instability, settlement, and infrastructure vulnerability. These changes are expected to continue and may increase maintenance costs, infrastructure failures, and long-term hazard exposure.  Changes in Severe Weather Patterns: Observed and projected changes in climate are contributing to shifts in the frequency and intensity of severe weather events, including extreme cold, heavy snowfall, and freezing rain. Emerging hazards such as winter rain events can result in cascading impacts to transportation, utilities, and emergency response systems.  Development Patterns and Exposure: Ongoing residential and infrastructure development, including expansion into wildland-urban interface areas and areas with permafrost or limited infrastructure, may increase exposure to multiple hazards. Changes in population distribution and land use may also influence evacuation, response, and recovery capabilities. These factors are considered qualitatively within individual hazard profiles and are reflected in the prioritization of mitigation actions. While not all future conditions can be quantified, they are incorporated into the risk assessment to ensure that mitigation strategies address both current and emerging risks. This approach aligns with FEMA requirements to consider changes in development, hazard trends, and future conditions when assessing risk. These hazards reflect both historical occurrence and current risk conditions within the Borough and are carried forward into the detailed hazard profiles and risk analysis presented in subsequent sections. 4.3 Hazard Identification - “What kind of natural hazards affect the Borough?” Each hazard profile evaluates the nature, extent, historical occurrence, and potential impacts of hazard events, providing a consistent framework for risk comparison across hazards. The first step in conducting a risk assessment is to identify the natural hazards that can occur within the Borough. A natural hazard is a source of harm or difficulty created by a meteorological, environmental, or geological event. Consistent with FEMA requirements, FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-3 Page 153 of 1055 jurisdictions must identify and describe the hazards that can affect the planning area, their location, extent, and history.141 The Borough followed FEMA guidance during hazard identification by reviewing existing plans and reports, analyzing historical records, consulting subject matter experts, gathering public input, and researching available state and federal datasets. This process supports FEMA’s requirement that hazard identification be based on multiple data sources, including local knowledge and documented hazard history.142 A comprehensive list of hazards was developed and evaluated by the planning team, which then screened hazards based on their likelihood, historical occurrence, and potential impacts within the Borough. During the hazard screening process, the planning team considered a broad range of hazards, including both natural hazards and other risks that could impact community resilience. Natural hazards evaluated included wildfire; severe weather (e.g., wind, snow, freezing rain in winter, lightning, thunderstorms, and extreme temperatures); flooding (including riverine and ice-jam flooding); seismic activity; and ground failure (including erosion, landslides, sinkholes, and permafrost-related instability).143 The planning team also reviewed additional hazards that may have lower probability but higher consequences, such as earthquakes, dam or levee failures, and extreme weather events. Non-natural hazards (e.g., hazardous materials incidents, cyber threats, and supply chain disruptions) were reviewed for broader emergency planning purposes but are not included in this hazard mitigation plan’s core natural hazard risk assessment in accordance with FEMA requirements.144 Based on this evaluation, the planning team identified the following five primary natural hazards for detailed analysis in this plan: 1) Wildfire (including wildland and urban conflagration (structure-to-structure)) 2) Severe Weather (including wind, snow, freezing rain in winter, lightning, and extreme weather events) 141 FEMA. 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2) – Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Requirements (Risk Assessment). 142 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Framework. 143 FEMA. Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide (2011) – Criteria for hazard identification and hazard screening. 144 FEMA. 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2) – Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Requirements (Risk Assessment). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-4 Page 154 of 1055 3) Flooding (riverine flooding, ice dams, ponding, levee break, dam failure, and localized drainage issues) 4) Seismic Hazards (earthquakes) 5) Ground Failure (erosion, landslides, sinkholes, and permafrost degradation (cryosphere-related hazards)) These hazards represent those with the greatest relevance based on local conditions, historical occurrence, and potential impacts to people, property, and infrastructure within the Borough.145 FEMA guidance emphasizes that hazard identification and profiling should include a description of the hazard type, historical occurrences, geographic extent, magnitude and severity, and probability of future events. The following subsections provide detailed hazard profiles for each identified hazard, including an assessment of past events, potential future conditions, and expected impacts. Hazards are presented in the following sections in order of relative risk and priority, based on the results of the hazard ranking and risk assessment process. 4.4 Profile Hazard Events - “How bad can it get?” Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize hazard probability, frequency, and extent across the Borough and provide context for evaluating the exposure and vulnerability of assets discussed in this section. The second step of the risk assessment involves profiling each identified hazard to understand its potential impacts on the Borough. Hazard profiling includes an assessment of location, extent (magnitude and severity), previous occurrences, and the probability for future events.146 Information used to develop hazard profiles was derived from multiple sources, including Alaska DHS&EM records, National Weather Service (NWS) data, local Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs), Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (HVA), and other federal, state, and local 145 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment Framework. 146 FEMA. 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2) – Local Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Requirements. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-5 Page 155 of 1055 datasets. Where available, recent data trends have been incorporated to reflect current conditions and emerging risks.147 Probability, frequency, and extent ratings are based on a combination of historical data, available state and federal datasets, location EOPs, HVAs, and input from subject matter experts. Where quantitative data is limited, ratings are based on the best available information and professional judgment.148 The following tables provide a comparative overview of hazards affecting the Borough and participating jurisdictions. Detailed hazard-specific discussions, including historical occurrences and impacts, are provided in the following subsections.149 Table 4-1: Hazard Probability Summary Hazard FNSB Fairbanks North Pole Wildfire (Wildland Fire & Urban Conflagration High High High (Structure-to-Structure)) Severe Weather High High High Flooding Medium Medium Medium Seismic Medium Medium Medium Ground Failure* Medium Medim Medium *Include erosion, landslide, and permafrost degradation (cryosphere-related hazards) Key: -High: Likely to occur frequently (regular or recurring events) -Medium: Occurs occasionally (periodic events) -Low: Occurs infrequently (rare events) 147 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance). 148 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance). 149 FEMA. 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2) – Local Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Requirements. FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-6 Page 156 of 1055 Table 4-2: Hazard Frequency and Extent Summary Frequency Extent Frequency Extent Hazard (Community (Community (FNSB) (FNSB) Level) Level) Wildfire (Wildland Fire and Occasional to Urban Conflagration Frequent Limited to High Limited to High Frequent (Structure-to-Structure) Severe Weather Frequent Limited to High Frequent Limited to High Limited to Limited to Flooding Occasional Occasional Moderate Moderate Moderate to Seismic Occasional Occasional Moderate to High High Limited to Limited to Ground Failure Occasional Occasional Moderate Moderate Key: Frequency -Frequent: Occurs regularly (annual or near-annual events) -Occasional: Occurs periodically (multi-year recurrence) -Rare: Occurs infrequently Extent (Impact Severity) -Zero: Used for historical information. An event occurred but caused no damage or loss -Limited: Minimal to moderate localized damage -Moderate: Widespread impacts requiring coordinated response -High: Significant impacts affecting major portions of the community Detailed hazard profiles, including spatial analysis of hazard extent, relative risk, and exposure to critical infrastructure, are provided in Chapters 5 through 9. 4.5 Inventory Assets - “What is at risk?” The third step of risk assessment is to identify the assets exposed to hazards and assess the Borough’s vulnerability. This includes an inventory of the people, infrastructure, and property that could be affected during a hazard event, consistent with FEMA requirements.150 Population exposure includes not only residents but also employees, commuters, shoppers, tourists, and others present within the jurisdiction at any given time. Special consideration is given to populations that may be more vulnerable to hazard impacts, including children, older adults, individuals with disabilities, and other populations with access and functional 150 FEMA. 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2) – Local Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Requirements. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-7 Page 157 of 1055 needs, as well as the facilities they may occupy, such as schools, senior housing, and health facilities.151 An inventory of the FNSB’s’ and participating cities’ assets is a critical component of the vulnerability assessment. This includes buildings, critical facilities, infrastructure systems, and community lifelines. Identifying these assets helps determine the potential exposure and susceptibility to damage from hazard events.152 For a multi‐jurisdictional plan, the risk assessment must evaluate vulnerability for each jurisdiction individually where risks differ across the planning area, in accordance with FEMA guidance.153 4.5.1 Population Social Vulnerability Communities must prepare for and respond to hazardous events, including natural hazards such as wildfire, flooding, and severe weather. A community’s ability to prevent human suffering and financial loss during disasters is influenced by a variety of social, economic, and demographic factors. These factors, such as poverty, lack of access to transportation, and crowded housing, are collectively referred to as social vulnerability.154 Social vulnerability is an important component of risk because individuals and populations with limited resources or reduced capacity may be more adversely affected by hazard events and may require additional support during response and recovery. Special consideration is given to populations with access and functional needs, including children, older adults, individuals with disabilities, and those with limited English proficiency.155 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) uses U.S. Census data to assess the relative vulnerability of census tracts. The SVI evaluates 15 social variables and groups them into four themes: 151 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance). 152 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance). 153 FEMA. 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2) – Local Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Requirements. FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance). 154 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance). 155 FEMA. 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2) – Risk Assessment (Vulnerability considerations). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-8 Page 158 of 1055 1) Socioeconomic Status 2) Household Composition and Disability 3) Minority Status and Language 4) Housing Type and Transportation Each census tract receives a ranking for each theme, as well as an overall ranking that reflects its relative vulnerability compared to other census tracts nationwide.156 Maps illustrating the distribution of SVI themes with the FNSB are provided below. These maps are used to identify areas where populations may be more vulnerable to hazard impacts and to support prioritization of mitigation actions. The CDC/ATSDR SVI is used to identify communities that may be disproportionately impacted by hazard events and may require additional support during response and recovery. The SVI ranks geographic areas based on 16 social factors, including socioeconomic status, household characteristics, minority status, and housing and transportation, which are grouped into four themes. Higher percentile rankings indicate greater social vulnerability. This plan incorporates the most recent available SVI data (2018–2022 American Community Survey), reflecting updated demographic and social conditions across the FNSB. Figures 4-1 through 4-4 illustrate the distribution of social vulnerability factors across the Borough using the CDC SVI. These maps highlight areas with higher concentrations of populations that may be more susceptible to hazard impacts due to socioeconomic conditions, household composition, language barriers, and access to transportation. Areas with elevated SVI scores may require additional consideration in mitigation planning, including targeted outreach, emergency communication strategies, and resource allocation to support vulnerable populations. 156 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-9 Page 159 of 1055 Figure 4-1: Map of CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) - Socioeconomic Status (2022) Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), 2022. Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Emergency Operations, Retrieved 6/1/2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-10 Page 160 of 1055 Figure 4-2: Map of CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) - Household Composition and Disability (2022) Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), 2022. Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Emergency Operations, Retrieved 6/1/2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-11 Page 161 of 1055 Figure 4-3: Map of CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) - Minority Status and Language (2022) Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), 2022. Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Emergency Operations, Retrieved 6/1/2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-12 Page 162 of 1055 Figure 4-4: Map of CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) – Housing Type and Transportation (2022) Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), 2022. Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Emergency Operations, Retrieved 6/1/2026. Senior Population Needs The senior population (generally defined as age 60 and older) represents one of the fastest- growing demographic groups in Alaska and the FNSB. As this population continues to grow, FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-13 Page 163 of 1055 understanding the specific needs and vulnerabilities of older adults is important for hazard mitigation planning and emergency management.157 Older adults may be disproportionately affected by hazard events due to factors such as mobility limitations, medical needs, fixed incomes, and reliance on support services. These conditions can increase vulnerability during the evacuation, response, and recovery phases of a disaster. Special consideration must be given to ensuring access to transportation, healthcare, and communication systems during emergency events.158 Areas with higher concentrations of older adults may also be associated with higher social vulnerability, as measured by the SVI, further increasing potential risk during hazard events.159 Within the FNSB, seniors may reside independently, in assisted living facilities, or in specialized housing. Identifying these populations and associated facilities helps inform planning efforts to reduce risk and prioritize mitigation actions. Incorporating the needs of older adults supports more effective preparedness, response, and recovery planning and strengthens overall community resilience.160 Key Demographic Trends The population of older adults (generally defined as age 60 and older) in the FNSB has been increasing and is expected to continue growing, consistent with statewide demographic trends. Alaska is experiencing an overall population aging as life expectancy increases and younger residents migrate, resulting in a higher proportion of older residents.161 In addition to overall growth in the senior population, the number of older seniors, particularly those aged 80 and above, is increasing at a faster rate. This group is more likely to require assistance with daily living, healthcare services, and emergency support during hazard events, thereby increasing vulnerability. As age increases, vulnerability to hazard 157 Alaska Commission on Aging; State of Alaska. Demographic trends and aging population data (most recent available). 158 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Vulnerable populations and risk assessment considerations. 159 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). 160 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Vulnerable populations and risk assessment considerations. 161 Alaska Commission on Aging; State of Alaska. Demographic trends and aging population data (most recent available). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-14 Page 164 of 1055 events also generally increases due to greater likelihood of mobility limitations, medical needs, and reliance on support services, with the most significant impacts typically affecting populations age 75 and older. The most significant growth is expected among the oldest age group (ages 80 and older), with implications for emergency response, healthcare demand, and access to services during hazard events.162 As the proportion of older residents grows, the demand for accessible housing, transportation, healthcare services, and emergency planning considerations is expected to increase. Understanding these demographic trends helps inform mitigation planning and ensures that the needs of older adults are incorporated into preparedness, response, and recovery actions. Areas with higher concentrations of older adults may also correspond with increased social vulnerability, as reflected in SVI data.163 As shown in Table 4-3, the Borough is experiencing an increase in the older adult population, which may increase vulnerability during hazard events due to mobility limitations, medical needs, and reliance on support services. These demographic trends highlight the importance of incorporating access-and-functional-needs populations into emergency planning and mitigation strategies. Table 4-3: Key Demographic Trends – Older Adult Population (Estimated) Population Age Current Estimate Projected Range Trend (≈2023-2024) (2035) 60+ ~18,000-20,000 ~23,000-26,000 Increasing 65+ ~12,000-14,000 ~17,000-20,000 Increasing 70+ ~8,500-10,500 ~13,000-16,000 Increasing 75+ ~5,000-6,5000 ~9,000-11,000 Increasing 80+ ~2,000-2,500 ~1754,000-5,000 Rapid Increase Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates (most recent available); Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development; Alaska Commission on Aging. Table 4-3 Note: Population estimates are derived from U.S. Census Bureau ACS data and State of Alaska demographic trends. Projections are based on observed aging trends, including increasing life expectancy and demographic shifts in Alaska’s population. These estimates are intended to illustrate general growth trends rather than provide precise forecasts. 162 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Vulnerable populations in risk assessment. 163 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-15 Page 165 of 1055 The Continuum of Care To help older adults maintain independence for as long as possible, housing, services, and supports are typically provided along a continuum of care ranging from services delivered in homes and communities to more intensive care in assisted living facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and acute care hospitals.164 Access to lower levels of care (shown in the circle wrapping around the senior living independently in Figure 4-5), such as in-home services, community-based support programs, and caregiver assistance, can help prevent or delay the need for more costly and intensive institutional care. Aging and Disability Resource Centers (ADRCs) and care coordinators assist individuals and caregivers in identifying and accessing appropriate services across this continuum.165 Gaps within the continuum of care can increase vulnerability during hazard events. When individuals are unable to access appropriate levels of care in their communities, they may rely on higher-level, more resource-intensive care that is less accessible during emergencies. This can create additional challenges for evacuation, sheltering, and continuity of care during disasters.166 Understanding the continuum of care for older adults helps inform hazard mitigation planning by identifying where service limitations may increase risk and where targeted strategies can improve resilience for vulnerable populations.167 Older adults who rely on services across this continuum may be particularly vulnerable during disruptions to infrastructure, transportation, and healthcare systems caused by hazard events. 164 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living (ACL). Aging and Disability Resource Centers and Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) framework. 165 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living (ACL). Aging and Disability Resource Centers and Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) framework. 166 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Vulnerable populations and access to services. 167 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Vulnerable populations and access to services. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-16 Page 166 of 1055 Figure 4-5: The Long-Term Services and Supports Continuum of Care for Seniors Source: FNSB Senior Needs Assessment, 2019, North Star Council on Aging/Fairbanks Senior Center Greatest Senior Needs The population of older adults continues to grow both statewide and within the Borough, increasing demand for services, housing, and long-term care supports.168 Previous assessments of senior needs in the FNSB, including the FNSB Senior Needs Assessment, identified key themes related to services, housing, and support systems for older adults. These identified needs continue to inform an understanding of vulnerability within the community and highlight areas where service limitations may increase risk during hazard events.169 168 Alaska Commission on Aging; Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Statewide demographic and population trends (most recent available). 169 Fairbanks North Star Borough Senior Needs Assessment (2019), Agnew::Beck Consulting; Alaska Commission on Aging. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-17 Page 167 of 1055 Services Home and community-based services provide critical support that allows older adults to remain independent; however, these services are often constrained by funding limitations and workforce capacity. Transportation remains a significant barrier, with limited availability of accessible, door-to- door services and capacity challenges among providers. Care coordination and access to services such as assisted living and Medicaid-supported programs may be delayed due to demand exceeding available resources.170 Additional challenges include limited access to healthcare providers accepting Medicare, workforce shortages in caregiving roles, and an aging volunteer base. Services such as home modifications, legal assistance, and advocacy are also constrained by capacity and funding but play an important role in reducing risk, supporting independence, and preventing institutionalization.171 Workforce shortages in healthcare, caregiving, and support services continue to affect the availability and accessibility of services for older adults, which may increase vulnerability during hazard events that disrupt access to care and support systems.172 Housing and Facility-Based Care There continues to be a need for affordable, accessible, and quality senior housing options within the Borough. Limited availability of independent housing, assisted living, and specialized care settings can lead to longer wait times and reduced housing stability for older adults. In particular, affordable, income-restricted senior independent housing often has wait times ranging from several months to over a year. Recent development of additional senior housing and assisted living facilities within the Borough has improved overall capacity; however, demand for affordable, accessible, and specialized housing options continues to exceed supply. 170 Fairbanks North Star Borough Senior Needs Assessment (2019), Agnew::Beck Consulting; Alaska Commission on Aging. 171 Fairbanks North Star Borough Senior Needs Assessment (2019), Agnew::Beck Consulting; Alaska Commission on Aging. 172 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Vulnerable populations, service capacity, and access to resources. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-18 Page 168 of 1055 Challenges also include limited availability of culturally appropriate services for Alaska Native elders, variability in assisted living quality, and insufficient capacity for individuals with higher care needs, including those with dementia or behavioral health conditions. These constraints can increase the likelihood that seniors reside in settings that may not meet their needs.173 Gaps in housing and service capacity can increase vulnerability during hazard events by limiting evacuation options, reducing access to care, and increasing reliance on already strained systems, particularly during prolonged disruptions to infrastructure and services. Addressing these needs supports resilience by improving the ability of older adults to safely shelter, evacuate, and recover during and after disasters.174 4.5.2 Infrastructure The FNSB contains a wide range of critical infrastructure across multiple sectors as defined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and supports key community lifelines, including transportation, energy, communications, healthcare, and water systems. Critical Infrastructure sectors present within the Borough include:175  Chemical Sector: The Chemical Sector is an integral component of the U.S. economy that manufactures, stores, uses, and transports potentially dangerous chemicals upon which a wide range of other critical infrastructure sectors rely.  Commercial Facilities Sector: The Commercial Facilities Sector includes a diverse range of sites that draw large crowds of people for shopping, business, entertainment, or lodging.  Communications Sector: The Communications Sector is a diverse, competitive, and interconnected industry using terrestrial, satellite, and wireless transmission systems. The transmission of these services has become interconnected; satellite, wireless, and wireline providers depend on each other to carry and terminate their traffic and companies routinely share facilities and technology to ensure interoperability. 173 Fairbanks North Star Borough Senior Needs Assessment (2019), Agnew::Beck Consulting; Alaska Commission on Aging. 174 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Vulnerable populations and access to services. 175 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and Critical Infrastructure Sectors. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-19 Page 169 of 1055  Dams Sector: The Dams Sector assets within the FNSB provide critical water retention and control services supporting flood control, industrial waste management, and recreation.  Defense Industrial Base Sector: The Defense Industrial Base Sector provides products and services that are essential to mobilize, deploy, and sustain military operations.  Emergency Services Sector: The Emergency Services Sector (ESS) is a community of highly skilled, trained personnel, along with the physical and cyber resources, that provide a wide range of prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery services during both day-to-day operations and incident response.  Energy Sector: The energy infrastructure is divided into three interrelated segments: electricity, oil, and natural gas.  Financial Services Sector: The Financial Services Sector includes depository institutions, providers of investment products, insurance companies, other credit and financing organizations, and the providers of the critical financial utilities and services that support these functions.  Government Facilities Sector: The Government Facilities Sector includes a wide variety of buildings, located in the United States and overseas, that are owned or leased by federal, state, local, and tribal governments.  Healthcare and Public Health (HPH) Sector: Includes publicly accessible healthcare facilities, research centers, suppliers, manufacturers, and other physical assets and public-private information technology systems required for care delivery and to support the transmission and storage of large amounts of HPH data.  Information Technology Sector: These virtual and distributed functions produce and provide hardware, software, and information technology systems and services, and, in collaboration with the Communications Sector, the Internet.  Transportation Systems Sector: The Transportation Systems Sector in the FNSB consists of the following modes: 1) Aviation; 2) Highway and Motor Carrier; 3) Mass Transit; 4) Pipeline Systems; 5) Freight Rail; and 6) Postal and Shipping.  Water and Wastewater Systems Sector: Safe drinking water is a prerequisite for protecting public health and all human activity, and properly treated wastewater is vital for preventing disease and protecting the environment. Ensuring continuity of drinking water and wastewater treatment and service is essential. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-20 Page 170 of 1055 The FNSB maintains a geospatial inventory of critical facilities, including a locally developed criticality ranking system that categorizes infrastructure based on its importance to life safety, continuity of operations, and community function. Facilities are assigned relative criticality rankings and analyzed for both importance and frequency across the Borough. Higher-ranked critical infrastructure includes facilities essential to community lifelines, such as hospitals, power generation facilities, transportation hubs (including the international airport), water and wastewater systems, and military installations. Lower-ranked but numerous facilities, such as schools, communications infrastructure, and assisted living facilities, also play an important role in community resilience due to their distribution and service populations.176 This ranking system supports prioritization of mitigation actions and helps identify infrastructure most at risk during hazard events. While critical infrastructure data is used in hazard risk mapping and vulnerability analysis, facility-level location details are not presented in this public-facing document to protect sensitive infrastructure information. Infrastructure systems are evaluated for vulnerability to identified hazards in Section 4.6 due to their critical role in emergency response, continuity of operations, and recovery. 4.5.3 Residential Property Residential property represents a significant portion of the Borough’s built environment and is a key component of potential loss exposure across multiple hazard types. Based on the most recent available FNSB tax assessment records, tens of thousands of parcels are classified as residential, including single-family homes, condominiums, mobile homes, multi- family dwellings, and planned community units. These properties collectively represent several billion dollars in total improvement value. In addition to privately held residential properties, housing units owned and managed by organizations such as the Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) provide critical housing for low-income and vulnerable populations. These units represent an important component of community resilience, as they often serve populations that may be disproportionately affected by hazard events. 176 Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS Division. Critical Infrastructure Inventory and Ranking Dataset (most recent available). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-21 Page 171 of 1055 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the FNSB contains more than 35,000 housing units, the majority of which are owner- or renter-occupied residential properties.177 The distribution, density, and value of these residential structures influence the Borough’s overall vulnerability to natural hazards, including potential damage, displacement, and recovery challenges following hazard events. Understanding the location and characteristics of residential properties supports hazard mitigation planning by identifying areas of concentrated exposure and informing strategies to reduce potential losses and protect housing stability within the community.178 Residential properties located in hazard-prone areas, such as floodplains or wildland-urban interface zones, may face increased risk of damage, displacement, and long-term recovery challenges. The vulnerability patterns identified in this section reflect development trends and changes since the 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan update. As described in Section 3.4, development across the FNSB, City of Fairbanks, and City of North Pole has been generally incremental and concentrated within existing developed areas, with limited new large-scale expansion. In the unincorporated areas of the FNSB, continued residential development and infrastructure expansion in wildland-urban interface areas and locations affected by permafrost degradation and ground instability contribute to sustained or slightly increased exposure to hazards such as wildfire, ground failure, and infrastructure disruption. Within the Cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, development has primarily occurred as infill and redevelopment within established urban areas, where existing regulatory controls and infrastructure systems moderate increases in vulnerability. Overall, the risk assessment results indicate that while development patterns have not substantially altered the overall hazard landscape since 2021, incremental development in hazard-prone areas and continued reliance on aging or vulnerable infrastructure remain key drivers of community vulnerability. These conditions reinforce the importance of integrating mitigation into land use planning, capital improvements, infrastructure upgrades, and building code enforcement to manage long-term risk. 177 U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates – Housing Units, Fairbanks North Star Borough (most recent available). 178 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Exposure and vulnerability assessment. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-22 Page 172 of 1055 4.6 Vulnerability and Loss Estimation This section evaluates the vulnerability of population, infrastructure, and critical facilities to identified hazards and estimates potential losses based on exposure and hazard characteristics. This analysis provides the basis for prioritizing mitigation strategies and actions presented in Chapters 10 and 11. Vulnerability is assessed by examining the location, characteristics, and sensitivity of assets relative to hazard exposure, as outlined in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. This component of the risk assessment integrates information from previous sections to estimate potential losses resulting from hazard events. Loss estimation considers the exposure and vulnerability of people, residential property, critical infrastructure, and other community assets to a range of hazard scenarios, consistent with FEMA requirements.179 Risk scores are based on a combination of hazard probability, magnitude, and exposure of population, critical facilities, and infrastructure, consistent with FEMA risk assessment methodology. Loss estimates are based on relative risk scoring that integrates hazard probability, exposure, and asset vulnerability, rather than direct dollar-loss modeling. This assessment evaluates potential impacts from multiple hazard events rather than a single scenario and considers both direct physical damage and broader effects, such as service disruption, displacement, and economic loss.180 The planning team conducted spatial analysis of hazard areas in relation to population, infrastructure, and property data to support the evaluation of vulnerability and potential losses. Detailed vulnerability assessments for each hazard are provided in Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.8.181 Where available, loss estimates incorporate spatial analysis, local data, and professional judgment to provide a realistic assessment of potential impacts. The following vulnerability assessments are presented in order of relative hazard risk, consistent with the hazard ranking developed in Section 4.3. They evaluate vulnerability and estimate potential losses associated with each identified hazard, based on exposure of 179 FEMA. 44 CFR §201.6(c)(2) – Local Mitigation Plan Risk Assessment Requirements. 180 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Loss estimation and vulnerability assessment. 181 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Loss estimation and vulnerability assessment. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-23 Page 173 of 1055 population, infrastructure, and critical facilities. This analysis supports the prioritization of mitigation actions presented in Chapter 11. 4.6.1 Vulnerabilities to Wildfire – Wildland Fire Impacts associated with wildland fire events include the potential for loss of life; damage to residential, commercial, and critical infrastructure; and disruption to economic and community functions. Wildland fire events may also impact livestock and pets, degrade air quality, damage forest resources, and contaminate water supplies due to post-fire runoff and debris. Wildfire risk within the Borough is influenced by vegetation type, weather conditions, and patterns of development, particularly within the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Structures located near the WUI, particularly along the outer edges of developed areas, are more vulnerable to wildfire damage. Buildings surrounded by dense vegetation—especially continuous black spruce fuels—and those constructed with combustible materials are at increased risk during wildfire events. Limited defensible space and close proximity to natural fuels further contribute to structural vulnerability.182 The FNSB CWPP identifies “Zones of Concern” as areas with elevated wildfire risk. These areas are characterized by heavy fuel loading, commonly consisting of continuous black spruce vegetation interspersed with residential development. Under conducive weather and fire conditions, wildfires in these areas have the potential to spread rapidly and intensify, increasing the risk to life and property.183 The Zones of Concern are classified into three categories: Extreme, Very High, and High hazard. No areas within the identified Zones of Concern are classified as Moderate or Low risk, indicating consistently elevated wildfire hazard across WUI communities.184 Wildfire risk in the Borough is strongly influenced by fuel conditions, weather patterns, topography, and proximity to developed areas. The CWPP identifies 27 WUI communities, all of which are classified as High, Very High, or Extreme hazard based on fire behavior modeling, fuels, and structural vulnerability. Spatial analysis of wildfire hazard indicates that areas of high fire intensity are distributed throughout the Borough, particularly within WUI areas (Figure 4-6) where vegetation and development overlap. The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Risk Score Map identifies areas of 182 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Wildfire impacts and vulnerability. 183 Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 (or most recent available). 184 Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 (or most recent available). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-24 Page 174 of 1055 high, medium, and low fire intensity, with many developed areas located within or adjacent to higher-risk zones.185 Figure 4-6: Map of FNSB Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI) Risk Score Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough. Wildland-Urban Interface Risk Score Map. Figure 4-6 illustrates the distribution of wildfire risk across the Borough, including areas within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). This pattern indicates that areas with higher wildfire risk are closely aligned with developed areas in the WUI, increasing the potential for structure loss, evacuation challenges, and impacts to critical infrastructure. Facility-level Fire Risk Scores indicate that critical infrastructure within the Borough is also highly vulnerable to wildfire impacts. Facilities with the highest risk scores (9–12) include fire water supply systems, electrical substations, fire stations, and communications infrastructure. The highest-risk facilities (score of 12) include water supply infrastructure and 185 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Fire Risk Dataset (AllScoresWildfire.xls) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-25 Page 175 of 1055 electrical substations, which are essential for fire suppression and community functionality. Disruption to these facilities during a wildfire event could significantly reduce emergency response capacity and impact to essential services, increasing overall community vulnerability.186 These vulnerabilities are further compounded by geographic and access constraints in many parts of the Borough. Access limitations further increase wildfire vulnerability in many areas of the Borough. Limited ingress and egress routes, extended response times, and constrained firefighting resources in outlying communities may hinder suppression efforts during rapidly advancing wildfire events. Wildfire smoke represents a significant secondary hazard, with prolonged fire events capable of degrading air quality across the Borough. Reduced visibility and hazardous air conditions can impact public health, aviation operations, and transportation systems, even in areas not directly threatened by active fire. Older structures and buildings not constructed to withstand wildfire exposure are particularly vulnerable. Structures lacking fire-resistant materials, appropriate defensible space, or modern construction standards face an increased risk of ignition and damage during wildfires. Overall, wildfire vulnerability in the FNSB is driven by a combination of high-hazard conditions, extensive WUI development, and critical infrastructure located within high-risk areas. Tables 4-4 through 4-7 summarize the distribution of critical facilities and infrastructure exposed to wildfire risk across the Borough. 186 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Risk Score Map; Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Fire Risk Dataset (HighScoresWildfire.xls) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-26 Page 176 of 1055 Table 4-4: Wildfire Zones of Concern by Hazard Level CWPP Classification (Ignition Hazard General Area Component Key Risk Drivers Level Characteristics Hazard Rating (ICHR)) Northern Annex (e.g., Continuous black spruce, Extreme ICHR > 75 Himalaya Rd, steep slopes, limited access, McCall/Darling) long response times Northern & Dense fuels, single access Very High ICHR 61-75 Eastern/Southern roads, limited water supply Annex communities Urban Core & Western Structure density, intermix High ICHR 41-60 Annex communities fuels, urban conflagration potential Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) hazard ratings and the FNSB Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Risk Score Map. Table 4-5: Critical Facilities by Fire Risk Category Fire Risk Relative Risk Example Facility Types Count (Approx.) Score Level 12 Extreme Water supply, substations Several 9 Very High Fire stations, Many communications, cell towers 8 High Power infrastructure, Many hydrants, FAA facilities 6 Moderate-High Schools, fire stations, post Extensive offices 4-2 Moderate Hospitals, utilities, Extensive government facilities 1-3 Lower Commercial, offices, banks Extensive Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Fire Risk Dataset (AllScoresWildfire.xls), including facility types and assigned Fire Risk Scores ranging from 1 (lowest) to 12 (highest). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-27 Page 177 of 1055 Table 4-6: High-Risk Critical Infrastructure (Score ≥ 9) Infrastructure Type Example Risk Score Fire Water Systems Water tanks, wells 12 Electrical Infrastructure Substations 12 Fire Stations Multiple borough stations 9 Communications Cell towers, GCI facilities 9 Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Fire Risk Dataset (AllScoresWildfire.xls); filtered analysis of high-risk facilities with Fire Risk Scores of 9–12. Table 4-7: Wildfire Hazard Zones (Map Interpretation) Zone Description Implications Concentrated WUI and Highest ignition and spread High Intensity fuel-heavy areas potential Medium Transitional WUI areas Moderate fire behavior risk Limited fuels or Lower ignition potential Low development Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Risk Score Map; interpreted classification of wildfire hazard intensity zones (High, Medium, Low) based on mapped fire risk scores. As shown in Tables 4-4 through 4-7, multiple critical facilities and infrastructure assets are located within areas of elevated wildfire risk. These include facilities essential to emergency response and community functioning, some of which are located in zones with limited access, higher fuel loads, and increased potential for fire spread. These conditions increase the potential for service disruptions, delayed emergency response, and cascading impacts on lifeline systems during wildfire events. These findings indicate a heightened risk to life safety, property, and continuity of operations, particularly in areas where residential development extends into forested or undeveloped land and where emergency access may be constrained. In addition to direct fire impacts, wildfire events in the Borough can result in prolonged smoke exposure, reduced air quality, transportation disruptions, and increased demand on public health and emergency services These vulnerabilities directly inform the wildfire mitigation actions identified in Chapter 11, including fuel reduction, defensible space initiatives, public outreach and education, and improvements to emergency access and response capabilities. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-28 Page 178 of 1055 4.6.2 Vulnerabilities to Wildfire – Urban Conflagration (Structure-to- Structure Fire) Urban fire events within the FNSB refer to structure-to-structure fire spread occurring within developed areas. Unlike wildland fires, which are driven by vegetation, urban fire events are characterized by ignition and rapid spread between buildings in areas with higher development density. Factors contributing to urban fire vulnerability include building density, construction materials, limited separation between structures, and the presence of older buildings that may not meet current fire-resistant design standards. In areas with closely spaced structures, fire can spread rapidly from one building to another, increasing the potential for large-scale damage. Critical infrastructure, commercial facilities, and higher-density residential areas within more densely developed portions of the Borough (e.g., downtown Fairbanks and North Pole) may be particularly vulnerable to urban fire events due to the concentration of development and interdependency of services.187 Critical infrastructure in developed areas, including fire stations, water supply systems, and communications facilities, may also be vulnerable to urban fires, particularly where these assets are co-located in densely developed areas and rely on interconnected systems for operation.188 Limitations in fire suppression capabilities may significantly influence urban fire vulnerability. Water supply constraints, reduced system pressure during extreme cold conditions, and potential impacts to fire water infrastructure can hinder firefighting effectiveness. Additionally, access challenges such as narrow streets, on-street parking, and snow accumulation can delay response and increase the likelihood of structure-to-structure fire spread.189 Wind-driven embers from nearby fires can also contribute to structure ignition, creating conditions where wildland fire and urban conflagration risks overlap, particularly in areas adjacent to the wildland-urban interface. Urban fire events can cause concentrated damage to commercial areas, critical services, and residential structures, particularly in more densely developed areas of the Borough. While 187 FEMA. Local Mitigation Planning Handbook (2013, current guidance) – Structure fire risk and vulnerability considerations. 188 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Risk Score Map. 189 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Risk Score Map. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-29 Page 179 of 1055 wildland fire risk is generally higher in outlying areas, urban fire risk is more localized but can result in significant impacts due to the concentration of assets and infrastructure. Urban conflagration risk in the FNSB is driven less by wildland fuels and more by structure density, building characteristics, and limitations in fire suppression access and water supply. Key factors contributing to urban conflagration vulnerability in the Borough are summarized in Table 4-8. Table 4-8: Urban Conflagration Vulnerability Factors Vulnerability Factor Description Local Relevance Structure Density Closely spaced buildings Present in the developed increase fire spread areas of Fairbanks and North Pole Building Materials Combustible siding/roofing Common in residential increases ignition potential construction Defensible Space Limited separation between Reduced in dense structures and fuels subdivisions Access Constraints Narrow roads, limited Observed in some WUI and ingress/egress older neighborhoods Wind Exposure Wind-driven embers Interior Alaska wind events accelerate structure-to- contribute to risk structure fire spread Water Supply Limited hydrant coverage or Constrains suppression flow capacity effectiveness in outlying areas Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP); and adapted from standard urban conflagration and WUI fire behavior vulnerability factors. As shown in Table 4-8, urban conflagration vulnerability is driven by a combination of structural, environmental, and infrastructure-related factors. High building density, combustible construction materials, limited defensible space, and constrained access routes increase the likelihood of rapid fire spread, while water supply limitations and wind exposure further amplify potential impacts. These conditions increase the potential for large-scale structural loss, disruption of critical services, and prolonged recovery in densely developed areas. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-30 Page 180 of 1055 4.6.3 Vulnerabilities to Severe Weather Impacts associated with severe weather events in the FNSB include structural damage, infrastructure disruption, and threats to life safety. Heavy snowfall can result in roof collapse, downed trees and power lines, damage to light aircraft, and sinking small watercraft. Severe winter conditions also increase the risk of injury and death due to vehicle accidents and overexertion during snow removal. Rapid warming following heavy snowfall can contribute to localized flooding and ice jam conditions. Extreme cold presents additional vulnerabilities. Prolonged low temperatures can lead to hypothermia, frozen pipes, fuel congealing, and mechanical failure in vehicles and equipment. Cold weather can also disrupt transportation systems through ice fog and reduced visibility, particularly in the Fairbanks urban area. Utility systems are at risk of failure due to increased demand and stress on infrastructure, while improper heating practices can result in carbon monoxide poisoning. Severe winter storms and complex weather events, such as high winds combined with snow or freezing precipitation, further increase the likelihood of cascading impacts. These events can cause widespread power outages, communication failures, and transportation disruptions, particularly along major roadways and in remote areas. Facility-level data indicate that critical infrastructure across the Borough is vulnerable to severe weather impacts. Fire stations, water supply facilities, electrical substations, and communications infrastructure exhibit some of the highest Winter Weather Risk Scores (9- 12). This indicates that exposure to severe weather is widespread across the Borough and not limited to a single geographic area. These facilities are essential for emergency response and community resilience, and their impairment during severe weather can significantly reduce response capacity.190 Spatial analysis of winter risk shows that high-frequency severe weather impacts are distributed across the Borough, affecting both developed and remote areas. The Winter Weather Risk Score Map (Figure 4-7) identifies areas of high, medium, and low frequency, with critical infrastructure located within higher-risk zones. This indicates that exposure to severe weather is widespread and not limited to a single geographic area.191 190 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Winter Weather Risk Score Map; FNSB Critical Facilities Winter Weather Risk Dataset (AllRiskScoreWinterStorm.xls and HighestRiskScoreWinterStorm.xls). 191 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Winter Weather Risk Score Map; FNSB Critical Facilities Winter Weather Risk Dataset (AllRiskScoreWinterStorm.xls and HighestRiskScoreWinterStorm.xls). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-31 Page 181 of 1055 Figure 4-7: Map of FNSB Annualized Frequency Winter Weather Risk Score Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough. Annualized Frequency Winter Weather Risk Score Map. Figure 4-7 illustrates the distribution of annualized winter weather risk frequency across the Borough. This pattern indicates that severe weather exposure is widespread, affecting both developed and remote areas, with critical infrastructure located within higher-frequency zones where disruptions are more likely. Older buildings and structures not designed to withstand heavy snow or high winds are particularly vulnerable. Structures lacking modern construction standards, such as reinforced roofing systems or appropriate load-bearing design, are at increased risk of damage or collapse. Additionally, rural and outlying areas may face greater vulnerability due to limited access, reduced emergency response capabilities, and reliance on fewer critical infrastructure systems. Overall, the entire Borough is exposed to severe weather hazards; however, vulnerability is influenced by infrastructure resilience, building characteristics, and access to emergency services. Critical facilities with high-risk scores and areas with frequent severe weather FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-32 Page 182 of 1055 activity represent the most significant concerns for planning and mitigation. Prolonged icy conditions associated with winter rain events may disproportionately affect rural residents, emergency responders, and populations with limited mobility, as well as disrupt access to fuel, food, and essential services.192 High-risk critical facilities exposed to severe weather impacts are summarized in Table 4-9. Table 4-9: High-Risk Critical Facilities – Severe Weather (Score ≥ 9) Winter Facility Name Facility Type General Location Weather Risk Score Chena Goldstream Fire & Fire Station Goldstream Rd area 9 Rescue Station 43 Chena Goldstream Fire & Fire Station Murphy Dome Rd 9 Rescue Station 41 area Ester Volunteer Fire Dept Fire Station Old Nenana Hwy 9 Station 51 area Chena Goldstream Fire & Fire Water Cordes Dr area 9 Rescue Pumphouse Chena Goldstream Fire & Fire Water Murphy Dome Rd 9 Rescue Station 41 Water area Tank Ester Volunteer Fire Dept Fire Water Old Nenana Hwy 9 Water Tank (50K Gallons) area ETS/Ester Substation Electrical Parks Hwy area 9 Operations Post Office Government Village Rd area 9 Facility Railroad Bridges (multiple) Transportation Borough-wide 9 Infrastructure Cell Towers (multiple-Ester Communications Ester Dome / 9-12 Dome/Goldstream) Goldstream areas Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Winter Weather Risk Dataset (HighestRiskScoreWinterStorm.xls); facilities with Winter Weather Risk Scores ≥ 9. 192 Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness (ACCAP), Winter Rain in Interior Alaska: Community Impacts, Effective Responses, and Policy Implications, Spring 2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-33 Page 183 of 1055 As shown in Table 4-9, several critical facilities with Winter Weather Risk Scores of 9 or higher are distributed across the Borough, including fire stations, water supply infrastructure, electrical facilities, transportation assets, and communications systems. The exposure of these facilities to severe weather increases the potential for service disruptions, reduced emergency response capability, and impacts to lifeline systems during winter storm events. These vulnerabilities are particularly significant given the Borough’s reliance on these systems for heating, transportation, and emergency response during extended periods of extreme cold and severe weather. 4.6.4 Vulnerabilities to Flooding Flooding within the FNSB can have significant impacts on life safety, infrastructure, the environment, and economic activity. These impacts are often exacerbated by the Borough’s climate, hydrology, and dispersed development patterns. Typical flood and erosion impacts include:193  Structural and Infrastructure Damage: Damage to structures, roads, bridges, culverts, and other infrastructure may occur due to high-velocity floodwater, ice, and debris transport. Debris accumulation on bridge piers and within culverts can reduce conveyance capacity, increase upstream water levels and causing overtopping, localized flooding, and structural failure.  Utility and Environmental Impacts: Flooding can cause the release of sewage, fuel, and other hazardous materials due to inundation of wastewater treatment facilities, sewage lagoons, storage tanks, and pipelines. These impacts may be particularly severe in rural or remote areas where systems are decentralized and more difficult to access during flood events.  Economic and Service Disruptions: Flood events may result in business closures, interruption of government services, and disruption to critical lifelines, including power, communications, potable water, wastewater systems, and transportation networks. Damage to transportation infrastructure can isolate communities and delay emergency responses.  Erosion and Sedimentation: Flooding can result in soil and debris deposition on riverbanks, embankments, and shorelines. These processes may damage 193 Fairbanks North Star Borough Mitigation Strategy and Mitigation Action Plan (2026 update); stakeholder input and capability assessment findings. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-34 Page 184 of 1055 infrastructure, affect property stability, and alter drainage patterns, increasing long- term vulnerability. Special Flood Hazard Area Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) represent the highest flood risk within the Borough. Properties located within these areas have at least a 1 percent annual chance of flooding, resulting in approximately a 26 percent chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Structures located within SFHAs are subject to increased exposure to:  Structural damage  Repetitive loss  Utility disruption  Access limitation during high-water events Federal regulations require property owners with mortgages from federally regulated or insured lenders to obtain flood insurance within these areas. Additional Borough Specific Vulnerabilities Flood vulnerability in the FNSB is further influenced by several local conditions:194  Limited Access and Response Constraints: Flooding can isolate neighborhoods and critical facilities by overtopping or damaging roadways, including damage to bridges and rail infrastructure, which may disrupt regional transportation and supply chains during flood events.195 Limited redundancy in transportation networks restricts evacuation, emergency response, and recovery operations, particularly in outlying areas.  Decentralized Infrastructure: Many areas rely on decentralized systems (e.g., on-site water, fuel storage, and wastewater systems), increasing vulnerability to contamination, system failure, and extended service disruption during flood events. 194 Fairbanks North Star Borough Mitigation Strategy and Mitigation Action Plan (2026 update); stakeholder input and capability assessment findings. 195 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Flood Risk Dataset (HighestRiskScoreFlood.xls). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-35 Page 185 of 1055  Critical Facility Exposure: Flooding may impact critical facilities essential for emergency response and continuity of operations. Disruption to these facilities can result in cascading impacts across multiple systems, including public safety, utilities, and healthcare. Facility-level Flood Risk Scores indicate that certain critical infrastructure within the Borough—including natural gas facilities, fire water supply systems, and transportation infrastructure such as railroad bridges—are among the most vulnerable to flood impacts, with several facilities assigned the highest flood risk score (12), reflecting both exposure and functional importance.196  Climate and Seasonal Factors: Rapid snowmelt, ice jams, and rain-on-snow events can produce sudden increases in water levels, increasing flood severity and unpredictability. Figure 4-8: Map of FNSB FEMA Flood Hazard Risk Score 196 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Flood Hazard Map Risk Score Map. FNSB Critical Facilities Flood Risk Dataset (AllRiskScoreFlood.xls and HighestRiskScoreFlood.xls). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-36 Page 186 of 1055 Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough. FEMA Flood Hazard Risk Score Map. Figure 4-8 illustrates the distribution of FEMA flood hazard risk areas across the Borough, including SFHAs and other mapped flood-prone locations. This pattern indicates that flood risk is concentrated along river corridors and in low-lying areas, where development, infrastructure, and critical facilities may be exposed to inundation, erosion, and limited access during flood events. Flood impacts may extend beyond mapped SFHAs due to ice- jam flooding, drainage limitations, and localized conditions, suggesting that mapped risk areas may underestimate actual exposure in some locations. Overall Vulnerability Summary Flooding in the FNSB presents a multi-dimensional risk, combining:  Direct physical damage  Infrastructure and lifeline disruption  Environmental contamination  Access and response limitations While SFHAs represent the highest-risk locations, flooding impacts may extend beyond mapped areas due to ice processes, drainage limitations, and localized conditions. 4.6.5 Vulnerabilities to Flooding – High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPDs) High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPDs) are defined by the potential consequences of failure rather than the likelihood of occurrence. Failure of such structures could result in loss of life and significant damage to downstream communities, infrastructure, and critical facilities. Within and upstream of the Borough, dam-related and flood control infrastructure includes the Chena River Flood Control Project (including Moose Creek Dam and associated levee and flood control structures) and the Fort Knox Mine tailings storage facility. Risk From HHPDs Failure or misoperation of these structures, while unlikely, could result in rapid-onset flooding affecting downstream areas, including portions of the developed Fairbanks urban area, transportation corridors, utilities, and critical facilities located along the Chena and Tanana River systems. These impacts could affect all participating jurisdictions depending on location and hydrologic conditions. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-37 Page 187 of 1055 Risk To HHPDs The dam and flood-control infrastructure may be exposed to the hazards identified in this plan. Flood events may increase hydraulic loading conditions and stress infrastructure. Seismic hazards may affect structural stability. Ground failure, including permafrost degradation and subsidence, may influence foundation conditions. Severe weather, including extreme precipitation and winter rain events, may affect operational performance. Limitations and Data Gaps Detailed engineering, structural, and operational data for these facilities are maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Fort Knox Mine and are not fully available within this plan. As a result, this assessment relies on publicly available and stakeholder-provided information. Continued coordination with infrastructure operators and regulatory agencies is necessary to improve understanding of potential impacts and to support future risk assessments. 4.6.6 Vulnerabilities to Earthquake - Ground Motion Ground shaking from earthquakes poses a significant hazard to the FNSB, potentially impacting life safety, critical infrastructure, and essential services. Alaska is one of the most seismically active regions in the world, and the Borough should expect the full spectrum of earthquake ground motion scenarios, ranging from minor shaking to severe, damaging events.197 Ground motion can result in structural damage, infrastructure failure, and disruption of essential services. While all structures are vulnerable to some degree, building performance varies significantly based on construction type, age, and design standards. Wood-frame structures, which are common in the Borough, generally perform better during seismic events than older unreinforced masonry or multi-story steel-and-concrete structures. Buildings constructed after approximately 1980, including many schools and government facilities, were designed in accordance with more stringent seismic standards intended to reduce life-safety impacts during major earthquakes. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses (PSHA) developed by the USGS indicate that the entire State of Alaska is subject to moderate-to-high earthquake hazard, as reflected in peak ground acceleration (PGA) values for various recurrence intervals. These analyses demonstrate that damaging ground motion is likely over the long term, even though the timing and magnitude of specific events cannot be predicted. Continued seismic monitoring 197 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Earthquake Risk Dataset (AllScoresEarthquake.xls). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-38 Page 188 of 1055 and research by organizations such as the Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC) confirm that seismic activity in Interior Alaska is ongoing and that future earthquakes are expected. In the FNSB, the impacts of strong ground motion extend beyond structural damage and include significant risks to critical infrastructure and lifeline systems. Facility-Level Earthquake Risk Scores indicate that numerous essential facilities, including power generation plants, substations, natural gas infrastructure, water and wastewater systems, transportation facilities, and emergency response assets, are in the highest risk category (score of 12), reflecting their vulnerability to ground shaking and their importance to community functionality (Figure 4-9).198 Figure 4-9: Map of FNSB Seismic Hazard Risk Score Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough. Seismic Hazard Risk Score Map. 198 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Earthquake Risk Dataset (HighestRiskScoreEarthquake.xls). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-39 Page 189 of 1055 Figure 4-9 illustrates the distribution of seismic hazard risk across the Borough based on facility-level earthquake risk scores. This pattern indicates that critical infrastructure with the highest vulnerability to ground shaking is distributed throughout the Borough, increasing the potential for widespread service disruption and cascading impacts during a major earthquake event. Damage to these systems can result in cascading impacts, including loss of electrical power, disruption of heating and fuel supply, interruption of communications, and reduced water availability for firefighting and public health needs. Disruption to transportation infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and rail lines, may further limit emergency response and delay recovery efforts. Ground motion may also affect critical services such as healthcare, emergency response, and public safety operations. Facilities such as hospitals, emergency operations centers, and fire stations must remain operational during and after an earthquake; however, damage to supporting infrastructure (power, water, communications) can significantly reduce their effectiveness. Overall, earthquake vulnerability in the FNSB is driven by the combination of regional seismic hazard, structural characteristics of the built environment, and the concentration of critical infrastructure and lifeline systems susceptible to disruption during strong ground-shaking events. Critical facilities with the highest vulnerability to earthquake ground motion are summarized in Table 4-10. Table 4-10: High-Risk Critical Facilities – Earthquake Ground Motion (Score = 12) Vulnerability Facility Type Examples Significance Aurora Energy Plant, North Loss of electricity affects all Power Generation Pole Power Plant critical services Fairbanks Natural Gas Fuel disruption impacts Natural Gas Systems facilities heating and energy Multiple substations Grid instability and Electrical Substations borough-wide cascading outages Water / Wastewater Water treatment and Public health and fire Systems wastewater plants suppression impacts Reduced firefighting Fire Water Systems Hydrants, wells, tanks capability FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-40 Page 190 of 1055 Transportation Railroad bridges, airport Limits evacuation, response, Infrastructure facilities and supply chains Direct life safety Healthcare Facilities Fairbanks Memorial Hospital consequences Emergency Response / Reduced emergency Lifemed, Guardian Flights Medivac response capability Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough Critical Facilities Earthquake Risk Dataset (HighestRiskScoreEarthquake.xls); facilities with Earthquake Risk Scores = 12. As shown in Table 4-10, multiple essential infrastructure systems, including power generation, natural gas supply, electrical distribution, water and wastewater systems, transportation infrastructure, healthcare facilities, and emergency response assets, are assigned the highest earthquake risk score (12). Damage to these systems could result in widespread service disruption, significantly affecting life safety, emergency response capability, and overall community resilience during and after a major earthquake. The high concentration of critical lifeline systems within the highest risk category highlights the potential for cascading impacts across interconnected infrastructure systems 4.6.7 Vulnerabilities to Earthquake - Liquefaction Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which saturated or partially saturated soil materials lose significant strength and stiffness under the applied stresses of earthquake ground motion. During shaking, soils may behave like viscous fluids, leading to loss of bearing capacity and ground stability. Liquefaction or plastic flow in underlying materials can lead to lateral spreading, settlement, and ground deformation, which may cause significant damage to buildings, infrastructure, and lifeline systems. Liquefaction and lateral spread can occur even in moderate earthquakes and have historically caused substantial damage worldwide. The planning team previously conducted a spatial analysis using a digital overlay derived from a preliminary liquefaction susceptibility map for the Fairbanks–Nenana area as part of the 2021 plan. This mapping indicates the relative probability of liquefaction occurring in soil deposits if they are water-saturated and subjected to sufficient ground shaking. Areas identified as having higher susceptibility are generally associated with unconsolidated sediments, alluvial deposits, and zones with shallow groundwater conditions. During the 2026 update, no new liquefaction-specific spatial analysis was conducted; however, the previously identified susceptibility patterns remain applicable and continue to inform the general understanding of liquefaction risk within the Borough. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-41 Page 191 of 1055 Additional Borough-Specific Vulnerabilities Liquefaction vulnerability within the FNSB is influenced by both geologic conditions and the location of critical infrastructure and development in susceptible areas.199  Infrastructure and Structural Impacts: Liquefaction can result in differential settlement of structures, tilting or collapse of buildings, damage to foundations and footings, and ground cracking and surface displacement. Even structures designed to withstand seismic shaking may sustain damage if the underlying soils lose strength.  Critical Infrastructure Exposure: Facility-Level Earthquake Risk Scores indicate that many critical infrastructure systems within the Borough, including water treatment plants, wastewater systems, electrical substations, natural gas facilities, and fire water systems, are highly vulnerable to earthquake impacts (scores up to 12).200 These systems are particularly susceptible to liquefaction-related damage due to buried pipelines and utilities, rigid connections between infrastructure components, and dependence on stable ground conditions. Damage to these systems may result in water distribution failures, loss of wastewater treatment capability, fuel and gas line ruptures, and reduced firefighting water availability.  Lifeline and Cascading Impacts: Liquefaction can significantly affect interconnected lifeline systems. Damage to one system (e.g., power or water) can cascade across others, resulting in loss of electrical power, disruption of communications, interruption of fuel supply, and reduced emergency response capability. Transportation infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and rail lines, may also be impacted by settlement and lateral spreading, limiting access for evacuation, response, and recovery operations.  Transportation and Access Limitations: Roadways, bridges, and embankments constructed on susceptible soil may experience deformation, cracking, or failure during liquefaction. These impacts can isolate communities, delay emergency response, and restrict the movement of resources during and after an earthquake.  Local Soil and Groundwater Conditions: Liquefaction susceptibility in the FNSB is closely tied to alluvial soils along river corridors, areas with high groundwater levels, 199 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Earthquake Risk Dataset (AllScoresEarthquake.xls). Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Earthquake Hazard Map Risk Score Map. 200 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Earthquake Risk Dataset (HighestRiskScoreEarthquake.xls). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-42 Page 192 of 1055 and unconsolidated sediment deposits. These conditions increase the likelihood that ground shaking will result in loss of soil strength and stability. Overall Vulnerability Summary Liquefaction represents a significant secondary hazard associated with earthquake ground motion in the FNSB. While ground shaking directly affects structures, liquefaction can cause ground failure that undermines buildings, infrastructure, and lifeline systems. The combination of susceptible soil conditions, exposure of critical infrastructure, and interdependent utility systems increases the potential for widespread, cascading impacts during a seismic event. Key infrastructure systems most vulnerable to liquefaction impacts in the Borough are summarized in Table 4-11. Table 4-11: High-Risk Infrastructure Vulnerable to Liquefaction Effects Infrastructure Example Facility Types Liquefaction Impact Category Water treatment plants, Pipe rupture, loss of Water Systems hydrants pressure Treatment plants, lift System failure, Wastewater Systems stations contamination Electrical Systems Substations, power plants Outages, cascading failures Distribution facilities Line rupture, fire/explosion Natural Gas risk Wells, tanks, hydrants Reduced suppression Fire Water Systems capability Roads, bridges, rail line Settlement, access Transportation disruption Fire stations, medivac Emergency Services Reduced response capability facilities Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough Critical Facilities Earthquake Risk Dataset; HighestRiskScoreEarthquake.xls (Earthquake Risk Scores = 12). As shown in Table 4-11, multiple critical infrastructure systems, including water and wastewater systems, electrical infrastructure, natural gas distribution, fire water systems, transportation infrastructure, and emergency services, are highly susceptible to liquefaction- related impacts. These systems are particularly vulnerable due to buried components, rigid connections, and reliance on stable ground conditions. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-43 Page 193 of 1055 Damage to these systems can result in widespread service disruption, including loss of water service, fuel supply interruptions, electrical outages, and reduced emergency response capability, compounding the impacts of earthquake ground shaking. The concentration of multiple lifeline systems within susceptible soil areas increases the potential for cascading failures across interconnected infrastructure networks. 4.6.8 Vulnerabilities to Ground Failure (Landslides, Subsidence, Slope Failure) Ground failure hazards in the FNSB, including landslides and subsidence, can result in widespread impacts to infrastructure, utilities, and developed areas. These hazards are typically associated with slope instability, soil conditions, groundwater influence, and localized geologic processes. Potential debris flows and landslides can damage and disrupt transportation corridors, utility systems, and water and wastewater infrastructure, and impact residential, commercial, and public structures near steep slopes, riverbanks, alluvial fans, and natural drainage pathways. Response and recovery efforts associated with ground failure events may range from minor debris removal to extensive infrastructure reconstruction. Transportation systems are particularly vulnerable, as debris deposition, slope failure, or subsidence can obstruct or damage roadways, requiring immediate clearance for emergency access followed by longer- term repair or replacement. Utility disruptions caused by ground failure are often localized but can be severe depending on the terrain and the placement of infrastructure. Damage may occur at discrete break points, requiring restoration of electrical, communication, water, wastewater, and fuel pipeline systems. Water and wastewater infrastructure may require treatment or repair to restore functionality and maintain water quality. Ground failure processes in the Borough are influenced by groundwater conditions, soil type, and localized subsidence or slope movement. In addition, infrastructure and population centers have been screened against soil types identified in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of the Fairbanks North Star Area as having engineering properties prone to subsidence. Additional Borough-Specific Vulnerabilities  Critical Infrastructure Exposure: Facility-Level Ground Failure Risk Scores indicate that several key infrastructure systems—including power generation facilities, electrical substations, and fire water systems—are among the most vulnerable to ground failure FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-44 Page 194 of 1055 impacts, with scores reaching the highest categories (up to 20) (Figure 4-10). Highly vulnerable facilities include power plants (e.g., Aurora Energy facilities), electrical substations (e.g., Chena and Zehnder substations), and fire water supply systems. Damage to these systems can result in cascading impacts on the power supply, emergency response capabilities, and overall community resilience.201  Lifeline and Cascading Impacts: Ground failure can disrupt interconnected lifeline systems, resulting in electrical outages due to substation or line damage, loss of communications infrastructure, disruption of fuel delivery systems, and impacts to water and wastewater services. These disruptions may have cascading effects across multiple sectors, amplifying the overall impact of a ground failure event.  Transportation and Access Limitations: Ground failure hazards can significantly impair transportation infrastructure. Roadways, bridges, and embankments may be damaged or rendered impassable due to slope instability, settlement, or debris deposition. These impacts can isolate communities and restrict emergency response, evacuation, and recovery operations.  Local Terrain and Soil Conditions: Ground failure vulnerability in the Borough is influenced by steep slopes and unstable terrain, riverine corridors and embankments, soil types prone to subsidence, and areas with elevated groundwater conditions. These factors increase the likelihood of localized slope failure, settlement, and associated damage to infrastructure. 201 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Ground Failure Risk Dataset (HighestRiskScoreGroundFailure.xls). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-45 Page 195 of 1055 Figure 4-10: Map of FNSB Ground Failure Hazard Risk Score Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough. Ground Failure Hazard Risk Score Map. Figure 4-10 illustrates the distribution of ground failure hazard risk across the Borough, based on facility-level risk scores. This pattern indicates that high-risk infrastructure is distributed across areas with susceptible soil, slope, and groundwater conditions, increasing the potential for localized damage and cascading impacts to lifeline systems. Overall Vulnerability Summary Ground failure hazards in the FNSB present a complex risk driven by terrain, soil conditions, and infrastructure placement. While impacts are often localized, they can be severe, particularly where critical infrastructure and transportation systems are affected. The presence of high-risk facilities and interconnected lifeline systems increases the potential for cascading impacts and for extended recovery following ground-failure events. High-risk facilities most vulnerable to ground failure impacts are summarized in Table 4-12. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-46 Page 196 of 1055 Table 4-12: High-Risk Facilities – Ground Failure (Highest Scores) Example Facility Type Risk Score Vulnerability Facilities Aurora Energy 20 Loss of power generation Power Generation Plant capability Chena, Zehnder 20 Grid instability, cascading Electrical Substations Substations outages Wells and hydrant 16 Reduced fire suppression Fire Water Systems systems capability Johnson 16 Localized outages and Electrical Infrastructure Substation service disruption Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough Ground Failure Risk Dataset; HighestScoresGroundFailure.xls. As shown in Table 4-12, several critical infrastructure systems, including power generation facilities, electrical substations, fire water systems, and supporting electrical infrastructure, are among the most vulnerable to ground failure impacts, with risk scores reaching the highest categories. Damage to these facilities could result in power outages, reduced fire suppression capability, and cascading impacts across interconnected lifeline systems. These vulnerabilities highlight the importance of considering ground conditions and terrain stability in infrastructure planning, mitigation, and maintenance efforts. 4.6.9 Vulnerabilities to Ground Failure - Cryosphere (Permafrost Degradation, Thaw Settlement) Cryosphere hazards in the FNSB are associated with the presence, degradation, and variability of frozen ground, including permafrost and ground ice. The cryosphere represents the portion of the Earth’s surface where water exists in frozen form, and in Interior Alaska, these conditions play a significant role in long-term ground stability and infrastructure performance. The Borough can expect ongoing, evolving cryosphere-related impacts due to climatic variability and warming trends. As permafrost thaws and ground ice melts, soils may lose strength and stability, leading to settlement, subsidence, and ground-surface deformation. These processes can damage structures, roads, utilities, and other infrastructure. Based on population distribution and development patterns, exposure to cryosphere hazards varies across the Borough. Residents, businesses, and critical facilities may experience a range of impacts, from moderate ground settlement to significant structural damage, depending on local soil conditions, ice content, and groundwater influence. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-47 Page 197 of 1055 Ground failure associated with cryosphere processes can result in the displacement of infrastructure, including the tilting of buildings, the cracking of foundations, and the distortion of roadways and pipelines. These impacts are often gradual but can accelerate under certain conditions, such as increased surface water, altered drainage patterns, or disturbances to insulating vegetation. The planning team screened infrastructure and population locations against soil types identified in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of the Fairbanks North Star Area that are prone to severe frost action and permafrost-related limitations. These screening results indicate that a substantial portion of developed areas and critical infrastructure may be exposed to cryosphere-related ground instability.202 Additional Borough-Specific Vulnerabilities  Critical Infrastructure Exposure: Facility-Level Ground Failure Risk Scores indicate that numerous critical infrastructure systems—including power generation facilities, substations, water and wastewater systems, and transportation infrastructure—are located in areas susceptible to ground instability processes associated with permafrost degradation and frost action. Highly vulnerable systems include power generation and electrical distribution infrastructure, water and wastewater treatment facilities, and transportation systems, such as roads and airports. Damage to these systems may result in long-term service disruptions and increased maintenance and repair costs.203  Lifeline and Cascading Impacts: Cryosphere-related ground failure can disrupt interconnected lifeline systems over extended timeframes. Gradual settlement and deformation may result in pipeline misalignment and rupture, electrical system instability due to shifting foundations, disruption of communication infrastructure, and reduced reliability of water and wastewater systems. These impacts can accumulate over time, leading to significant operational challenges and increased risk during other hazard events.  Transportation and Access Limitations: Transportation infrastructure is particularly vulnerable to cryosphere hazards. Thawing permafrost and frost heave can cause road surface deformation and cracking, loss of embankment stability, and airfield and 202 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Soil Survey of the Fairbanks North Star Area, Alaska. 203 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Critical Facilities Ground Failure Risk Dataset (AllScoresGroundFailure.xls) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-48 Page 198 of 1055 runway settlement. These conditions may reduce mobility, increase maintenance requirements, and affect emergency response and supply chains.  Local Soil, Permafrost, and Groundwater Conditions: Cryosphere vulnerability in the Borough is strongly influenced by ice-rich permafrost deposits, seasonal freeze-thaw cycles, soil types prone to frost heave and thaw settlement, and groundwater presence and drainage conditions. These factors contribute to spatial variability in ground stability and increase the likelihood of infrastructure impacts over time. Overall Vulnerability Summary Cryosphere hazards constitute a significant and ongoing source of ground-failure risk in the FNSB. Unlike sudden-onset hazards such as landslides, cryosphere-related impacts are often gradual but widespread, affecting infrastructure performance over time. The combination of permafrost degradation, frost action, and underlying soil conditions increases the vulnerability of critical infrastructure, transportation systems, and developed areas, contributing to long-term maintenance challenges and potential cascading impacts across lifeline systems. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 4-49 Page 199 of 1055 5. Wildfire: Wildland Fire and Urban Conflagration (Structure-to-Structure) Hazard Profile Wildfire is a recurring and high-consequence hazard in the FNSB, driven by Interior Alaska’s fire-adapted boreal forest, seasonal drought conditions, and frequent lightning activity. Large wildfires have repeatedly affected extensive portions of the Borough, producing impacts that extend beyond burned areas to include smoke, degraded air quality, transportation disruptions, utility disruptions, and threats to communities within the WUI. Historical large wildfire activity in Interior Alaska is illustrated in Figure 5-1. This image demonstrates the scale and extent of wildfire activity that can occur across the region under extreme fire weather conditions. Figure 5-1: Large Wildfire Activity in Interior Alaska, August 2009 Source: NASA MODIS, August 4, 2009 In addition to wildland fire, the Borough is vulnerable to urban conflagration, a related but distinct hazard characterized by structure-to-structure fire spread within developed areas, independent of adjacent wildland fuels. Urban conflagration risk is influenced by building density, construction type, access constraints, water supply limitations, and wind conditions, and may be initiated by wildfire ember intrusion, infrastructure failure, or structural ignition within the built FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-1 Page 200 of 1055 environment. While wildland fire and urban conflagration may occur simultaneously or sequentially during severe fire weather, they present different exposure patterns, response challenges, and mitigation considerations, and are addressed accordingly in this plan. 5.1 Nature and Location Wildfire is a natural, recurring process in the boreal forest ecosystem of the FNSB. The Borough lies within Interior Alaska’s fire-prone landscape, where wildfire occurrence is strongly influenced by climatic conditions, lightning frequency, vegetation patterns, and the location of development relative to fire-adapted ecosystems.204 The Interior Alaska boreal forest is a fire-adapted system that has historically maintained a mosaic of coniferous and deciduous vegetation over millennial time scales. Black spruce is a dominant component of this ecosystem and is adapted to periodic wildfire. While vegetation type and fuel continuity influence fire behavior at local scales, scientific studies of recent extreme fire seasons in Interior Alaska indicate that weather conditions, particularly prolonged drought, high temperatures, low relative humidity, and lightning activity, are the primary drivers of large wildfire events, rather than fuel accumulation or diminished “forest health.”205 Historic wildfire activity demonstrates that fire has been widespread across the Borough for decades. Fire history mapping (Figure 5-2) shows repeated wildfire occurrence across large portions of the FNSB since at least the mid-20th century, underscoring that wildfire is a persistent regional process rather than an anomalous condition.206 These patterns indicate that large fires have occurred across a range of vegetation conditions during extreme fire weather. 204 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. 205 Barrett, K. et al. (2016). Fire regimes, extreme fire weather, and vegetation dynamics in Interior Alaska. 206 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Wildfire Perimeter History Map, compiled fire history datasets. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-2 Page 201 of 1055 Figure 5-2: Map of FNSB Fire History Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Emergency Operations Figure 5-2 illustrates the spatial distribution of historical wildfire activity across the Borough. This pattern indicates that wildfire has occurred repeatedly across a wide geographic area over time, reinforcing that fire is a persistent and natural process within the FNSB rather than an isolated or anomalous event. Localized fire suppression efforts near population centers such as Fairbanks have influenced vegetation patterns in some developed areas; however, there is no evidence of widespread increases in stand age or conifer dominance at the Interior Alaska or statewide scale attributable to fire suppression. The relatively short period of more systematic suppression efforts, primarily from the mid-20th century through approximately 1980, represents less than one fire return interval for much of the boreal forest and has had limited influence outside densely populated areas.207 Wildfire risk within the Borough is therefore best understood as a function of exposure, particularly where development occurs within fire-prone landscapes. 207 Barrett, K. et al. (2016). Fire regimes, extreme fire weather, and vegetation dynamics in Interior Alaska. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-3 Page 202 of 1055 WUI mapping (Figure 5-3) indicates extensive areas of both interface and intermix development throughout the FNSB, where residential structures, critical facilities, and infrastructure are located adjacent to or within vegetated areas capable of supporting wildfire spread.208 These locations represent the highest potential for life safety impacts, property damage, and evacuation requirements during wildfire events. Figure 5-3: Map of FNSB Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI) Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough Wildfire Urban Interface Map Figure 5-3 illustrates the distribution of the wildland-urban interface (WUI) across the Borough, including both intermix and interface development patterns. This pattern indicates that a substantial portion of residential development and infrastructure is located within fire-prone landscapes, increasing the potential for wildfire exposure and associated impacts to life safety, property, and evacuation routes. Wildfire management within the FNSB has historically emphasized coordinated interagency response and recognition of fire as a natural ecological process. Wildland fire management across most of the Borough is the responsibility of State 208 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Wildland-Urban Interface and Wildfire Hazard Extent Mapping. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-4 Page 203 of 1055 and Federal agencies, with coordination among agencies occurring through established interagency frameworks based in Fairbanks (Figure 5-4). This management context provides the framework for addressing community wildfire risk through local planning efforts, including the 2025 FNSB CWPP. Figure 5-4: Map of Wildland Fire Management within the FNSB Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Emergency Operations. Retrieved May 29, 2020. Verified current as of May 16, 2026, through Alaska Wildland Fire Information Map Series. Figure 5-4 illustrates wildland fire management responsibility areas across the Borough, including State, Federal, and local jurisdictional boundaries. This pattern indicates that wildfire management within the FNSB relies on coordinated FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-5 Page 204 of 1055 interagency response across multiple jurisdictions, which is critical for effective suppression, resource allocation, and incident management. The CWPP identifies multiple Zones of Concern where hazardous fire behavior is most likely to affect communities. These areas are characterized by the intersection of fire-adapted vegetation, topography, weather exposure, and development patterns, rather than by assumptions of degraded or unhealthy forest conditions.209 The CWPP emphasizes that mitigation efforts such as fuel treatments, defensible space, and prescribed fire are most effective when applied strategically near communities to reduce wildfire intensity and improve suppression effectiveness, rather than to alter natural forest composition. In summary, wildfire hazard in the FNSB is driven primarily by extreme fire weather acting on a naturally fire-adapted landscape, with risk concentrated where human development intersects with wildfire-prone environments. The location of communities, infrastructure, and access routes relative to these landscapes is the key determinant of wildfire vulnerability within the Borough. 5.2 Historical Occurrence Wildland fire and urban conflagration fires have been recurring and have influential hazards in Alaska and within the FNSB for more than a century. Historical records indicate that fire has posed a risk to both natural landscapes and developed areas in Fairbanks since its earliest years. Early in the community’s history, large structural fires demonstrated the vulnerability of the developing urban core. Major fires in 1904 and 1906 burned significant portions of downtown Fairbanks, damaging commercial buildings and infrastructure constructed primarily of wood and other combustible materials. These early urban fire events illustrate the long-standing risk of fire in densely developed areas and highlight the importance of building practices, fire protection capacity, and water supply in limiting its spread.210 Wildland fire has also historically affected areas surrounding Fairbanks, including the Birch Hill area and adjacent uplands. Fire history datasets maintained by the 209 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. 210 LitSite Alaska – Fairbanks Burns (1906). Alaska Handbook – Great Fairbanks Fire of 1906. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-6 Page 205 of 1055 AFS, BLM, and UAF show repeated wildfire occurrence and mapped fire perimeters in the Fairbanks region dating back to the mid-20th century.211 These data demonstrate that wildfire is a recurring and natural process in the boreal forest ecosystem surrounding the community. The Birch Hill area, characterized by forested uplands and expanding residential development, remains susceptible to wildfire activity where vegetation, topography, and human presence converge. This pattern reflects ongoing WUI risk within the Borough. Since 2000, Alaska has experienced 14 FEMA-declared wildfire disasters, reflecting the scale and severity of wildfire impacts statewide. Two of these declared wildfire disasters directly affected the FNSB: the Moose Mountain Fire (2011) and the Boundary Fire (2004).212 Within the Borough, wildfire history shows that both large, remote fires and smaller fires near communities can have significant impacts. The Moose Mountain Fire ignited on May 20, 2011, near the community of Goldstream and burned approximately 940 acres. Although limited in size, the fire's proximity to residences required prolonged suppression efforts, and it was not declared extinguished until early September. Suppression costs exceeded $5 million, illustrating how wildfires near populated areas can lead to disproportionately high response costs.213 During the same fire season, the Hastings Fire (2011) burned approximately 54,217 acres in the Fairbanks area and prompted evacuation advisories for nearby subdivisions. This human-caused fire required extensive suppression resources and resulted in estimated costs exceeding $18 million.214 Other notable wildfires affecting the Borough include the Stuart Creek 2 Fire (2013), which burned more than 87,000 acres and forced the evacuation of hundreds of residents and animals, and the Shovel Creek Fire, which required evacuations and sheltering for multiple communities and became a nationally prioritized incident.215 211 Alaska Large Fire Database / AFS fire perimeter datasets. UAF SNAP wildfire history mapping tools. 212 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Past Disaster and Hazard Event Records, including wildfire incident summaries and FEMA disaster declarations. 213 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Past Disaster and Hazard Event Records, including wildfire incident summaries and FEMA disaster declarations. 214 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Past Disaster and Hazard Event Records, including wildfire incident summaries and FEMA disaster declarations. 215 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Past Disaster and Hazard Event Records, including wildfire incident summaries and FEMA disaster declarations. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-7 Page 206 of 1055 The Boundary Fire (2004) remains one of the most significant wildfire events in Alaska’s recorded history. Burning during a year characterized by extreme heat, prolonged drought, and record lightning activity, the Boundary Fire ultimately exceeded 500,000 acres, with the larger Alaska–Canada Border fires collectively burning more than one million acres statewide. Scientific assessments of this and other extreme fire years indicate that weather conditions, rather than fuel accumulation alone, were the dominant drivers of fire extent and severity.216 In addition to direct fire impacts, wildfire has repeatedly affected the FNSB through smoke and air quality degradation. Wildfire smoke has resulted in extended periods of unhealthy air quality, particularly in densely populated areas of the Borough. Smoke exposure poses heightened risks to vulnerable populations, including older adults, children, and individuals with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions. Wildfire smoke consists of a complex mixture of gases and fine particulate matter, including PM2.5, which can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, increasing the risk of serious health effects.217 Wildfire smoke has also disrupted transportation and critical infrastructure, including roadway travel, aviation operations at Fairbanks International Airport and military installations, and rail service along the Alaska Railroad corridor. During severe smoke events, reduced visibility and operational constraints have resulted in delays, closures, and regional economic impacts, as illustrated in Figure 5-5.218 216 Grabinski, Z. & McFarland, H.R. Alaska’s Changing Wildfire Environment 2.0 (2025). Alaska Fire Science Consortium, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 217 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wildfire Smoke and PM2.5 Health Impacts. 218 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Past Disaster and Hazard Event Records, including wildfire incident summaries and FEMA disaster declarations. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-8 Page 207 of 1055 Figure 5-5: Wildfire Smoke in Fairbanks. Source: Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness / University of Alaska Fairbanks. Figure 5-5 illustrates wildfire smoke conditions in the Fairbanks area during a significant smoke event. These images demonstrate the extent to which wildfire FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-9 Page 208 of 1055 smoke can reduce visibility, degrade air quality, and disrupt transportation and daily activities across the Borough. On June 1, 2020, an intense smoke-driven vortex event, commonly referred to as a “smokeknado,” was observed south of Fairbanks during a period of heavy wildfire smoke and unstable atmospheric conditions (Figure 5-6). While not a true tornado, the event produced rapidly rotating smoke columns and near-zero visibility, further illustrating how severe smoke conditions can create hazardous travel environments and disrupt transportation and aviation operations even in the absence of precipitation or high winds.219 Figure 5-6: Smoke Vortex (“Smokenado”) Observed South of Fairbanks, June 1, 2020. Source: National Weather Service Fairbanks Forecast Office; public observation imagery. Figure 5-6 illustrates a smoke vortex (“smokenado”) observed during a wildfire smoke event near Fairbanks. This phenomenon demonstrates how extreme fire weather and atmospheric instability can create hazardous conditions that further 219 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. June 1, 2020 smoke vortex event summary and wildfire smoke impact statements. Fairbanks North Star Borough; Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. Transportation and visibility impacts associated with wildfire smoke events. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-10 Page 209 of 1055 reduce visibility and increase risks to transportation and emergency response operations. Historical records further indicate that large fires influenced the FNSB landscape prior to modern fire management. Extensive railroad-related fires in the Tanana Flats during the early 1940s, burning more than 700,000 acres, helped shape the forest mosaic south of Fairbanks that persists today. These events highlight that large-scale wildfire is not a recent phenomenon but a long-standing component of the Interior Alaska fire regime.220 Recent research confirms that Alaska’s wildfire environment is continuing to evolve. Studies conducted by the Alaska Fire Science Consortium indicate that Interior Alaska has experienced multiple “large fire years” since 2000, defined as years in which more than one percent of the landscape burned. These patterns are closely associated with increasing fire weather severity and drought conditions, reinforcing wildfire as a persistent and recurring hazard for the FNSB.221 5.3 Extent Extent describes the severity or magnitude of a hazard, including the intensity, geographic scale, and potential level of impact on the planning area. The extent of wildfires within the FNSB varies by location, seasonal conditions, and event characteristics. Wildfire extent is defined by the size, intensity, and spread of fire across vegetated areas. Extent may range from small, localized fires to large-scale regional events affecting thousands of acres and threatening wildland-urban interface areas. Fire behavior, fuel conditions, weather, and topography influence the severity and spread of wildfire within the planning area. In the FNSB, wildfire extent can range from small, localized fires affecting tens to hundreds of acres to large, landscape-scale events exceeding tens of thousands to several hundred thousand acres under extreme fire weather conditions. Historical events such as the Boundary Fire and other large Interior Alaska fires demonstrate the potential for wildfire to affect extensive portions of the Borough and surrounding region during severe fire seasons. Under these conditions, wildfire 220 Alaska Fire Science Consortium. Research Briefs on Historical Fire Regimes in Interior Alaska (2020– 2021). 221 Grabinski, Z. & McFarland, H.R. Alaska’s Changing Wildfire Environment 2.0 (2025). Alaska Fire Science Consortium, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-11 Page 210 of 1055 intensity may include rapid spread rates, crown fire behavior in conifer-dominated stands, and long-range ember transport that ignites spot fires well ahead of the main fire front, increasing the potential for structure loss and urban conflagration in exposed areas. Extent is further illustrated through hazard mapping and exposure analysis presented in Chapter 4. 5.4 Possible Impacts from Future Events The entire FNSB is vulnerable to wildland fire and urban conflagration hazards, although risk varies based on location, land use, and development patterns. Communities, populations, and facilities located within or adjacent to the wildland-urban interface are at elevated risk from wildland fire, while developed areas with higher structure density are vulnerable to urban conflagration, defined as structure-to-structure fire spread within built environments. Factors influencing the severity of future fire impacts include population distribution, structural density and design, transportation network configuration, water supply availability, and the infrastructure required to support residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses.222 Under extreme fire weather, particularly when large wildfires coincide with strong wind events, communities within the WUI may face rapidly spreading fire behavior that exceeds initial attack and suppression capabilities, increasing the risk of urban conflagration and large-scale evacuation. During future wildfire events, particularly those occurring under extreme fire weather conditions, the Borough may experience significant life-safety impacts that require emergency medical services, evacuation, temporary sheltering, and the provision of food, water, and essential supplies. Dense smoke and wind-driven fire behavior may further complicate evacuation by reducing visibility, limiting roadway capacity, and constraining responder access during time-critical incidents. Prolonged wildfire smoke may degrade air quality over extended periods, increasing the risk of adverse health effects, especially for vulnerable populations. Roadway and air transportation routes through the wildland-urban interface may 222 Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-12 Page 211 of 1055 be closed or restricted for extended durations, limiting emergency response, commerce, and the delivery of goods and services.223 Urban conflagration events present a different but equally serious set of future impacts. In densely developed areas, fire may spread rapidly between structures due to limited separation distances, combustible construction materials, wind-driven ember exposure, constrained access routes, and reduced firefighting water availability. Urban conflagration can result in concentrated property loss, resident displacement, and disruption of essential services, even in the absence of a large surrounding wildland fire.224 Wildland fires and urban conflagrations both have the potential to damage or disrupt large-scale, interconnected infrastructure systems. Impacts may include interruptions to the TAPS, regional fuel production and refining, electrical transmission and distribution systems, rail transportation of goods and passengers, highway delivery of natural gas, and air transport of freight and travelers. Disruption to any one of these systems may result in cascading impacts across others, amplifying economic and service disruptions throughout the Borough and the state.225 Although Fairbanks’ municipal water supply is sourced from wells within the metropolitan area, fire-related power outages or transportation disruptions could affect water availability and treatment. Rural residents who rely on water transported or delivered may face acute shortages if transportation corridors are closed. In both wildland fire and urban conflagration scenarios, limited access to water supplies may also reduce firefighting capability and increase the potential for fire spread.226 Finally, fire impacts on national defense assets could be significant due to the proximity of Fort Wainwright and Eielson AFB. Wildfire smoke, access limitations, power disruptions, and urban conflagration impacts within developed areas may 223 Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Wildfire Smoke, PM2.5, and Public Health Impacts. 224 Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. 225 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Lifelines and Infrastructure Interdependency and Cascading Impacts Guidance. 226 Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-13 Page 212 of 1055 affect operational readiness, training activities, housing areas, and emergency response capabilities associated with these installations.227 Wildland fire and urban conflagration events may also cause cascading supply chain disruptions by damaging transportation corridors, restricting air and rail access, and disrupting fuel and freight movement into Interior Alaska, as described in Annex A: Supply Chain Disruptions Hazard Profile.228 5.5 Recurrence Probability of Future Events Wildland fire and urban conflagration hazards in the FNSB are considered highly likely to occur. Wildland fire is a recurring annual hazard in Interior Alaska, with fire seasons typically occurring between May and September, and variability driven by weather conditions, fuel moisture, and ignition sources. Historical fire occurrence data indicate that small wildland fires occur frequently each year, whereas large, high-intensity wildfire events occur periodically during extended drought, high temperatures, and low humidity. Lightning is a primary natural ignition source, while human-caused ignitions also contribute to fire occurrence within the Borough. Urban conflagration events are less frequent but remain a low- to moderate- probability hazard with potentially high consequences, particularly in areas with high structural density, limited defensible space, or constrained emergency access. The likelihood of structure-to-structure fire spread increases under extreme fire weather conditions, limited water supply, or delayed suppression. The probability of future wildfire events is expected to remain high and may increase over time due to:  Warmer temperatures and longer fire seasons  Increased frequency of extreme weather conditions  Changes in vegetation and fuel conditions  Continued development within the wildland-urban interface 227 Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. 228 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Annex A: Supply Chain Disruptions Hazard Profile, 2026 MJ-HMP Update. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-14 Page 213 of 1055 Overall, wildland fire represents one of the most frequent and significant natural hazards affecting the Borough, while urban conflagration represents a lower- frequency but high-impact risk. Scientific observations and climate records indicate that Alaska’s wildfire risk has increased in recent decades. In Interior Alaska, a typical summer today closely resembles what were considered the warmest summers prior to the 1970s. Since 1925, six of the ten warmest summers (June–August) in Alaska’s primary wildfire regions have occurred within the past 20 years, contributing to longer fire seasons, increased fire weather severity, and higher probabilities of large wildfire events, as illustrated in Figure 5-7.229 Figure 5-7: Alaska Wildfire Number of Fires and Acres Burned from 1950 to 2025. Source: Alaska Climate Research Center, 2025 Alaska Annual Climate Report (Microsoft Word - 2025_AnnualReport_Draft- v10.docx). Alaska Fire History Chart available at https://fire.ak.blm.gov/predsvcs/intel.php. As development continues to expand into wildland areas, the probability of wildfire impacts to people and property increases. The WUI concentrates exposure by placing residential neighborhoods, infrastructure, and critical facilities within fire-prone landscapes. In addition, developed areas with higher structural density face a higher probability of urban conflagration, in which structure-to-structure fire spread may occur during extreme wind events, prolonged dry conditions, or after ember exposure from nearby wildland fires. 229 Grabinski, Z. & McFarland, H.R. Alaska’s Changing Wildfire Environment 2.0 (2025). Alaska Fire Science Consortium, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. www.frames.gov/afsc/acwe FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-15 Page 214 of 1055 Fire ignition sources also influence future probability. While the majority of wildfire ignitions in Alaska are human-caused, lightning-caused fires account for approximately 90 percent of the total area burned statewide, largely because they frequently occur in remote areas where detection and initial attack are delayed, and suppression is limited by access and management objectives. Human-caused fires, by contrast, tend to occur closer to populated areas, are often detected more quickly, and typically burn fewer acres per event, though they may pose a higher risk of structural damage and economic loss due to their proximity to development.230 Urban conflagration probability is driven by a different but related set of factors, including structural density, building materials, limited separation distances, constrained access for firefighting equipment, and availability of firefighting water supplies. Periods of extreme heat, drought, and wind increase the likelihood that a single structural ignition could spread rapidly through developed areas, even in the absence of a large surrounding wildland fire.231 Beyond the immediate occurrence of fire, wildfire probability is also linked to secondary and cascading effects that influence future risk. Wildfire smoke regularly affects large portions of the Borough, degrading air quality, limiting visibility, and constraining aviation operations that support both suppression and community access. High-severity fires can remove surface organic layers, contributing to long-term permafrost thaw, altered hydrology, and changes in vegetation that may influence future fire behavior.232 The FNSB has responded to this persistent probability of wildfire through coordinated planning and mitigation efforts. Beginning in 2005, the Borough partnered with the Alaska DFFP and other state and federal agencies to develop wildfire risk mapping and the CWPP. The 2025 CWPP identifies wildfire risk across the Borough using an exposure-based framework that incorporates hazardous fuels, ignition risk, values at risk, and suppression difficulty, and recognizes wildfire 230 Alaska Fire Science Consortium; Alaska Division of Forestry & Fire Protection. Wildfire ignition and burned-area statistics for Interior Alaska. 231 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. 232 Grabinski, Z. & McFarland, H.R. Alaska’s Changing Wildfire Environment 2.0 (2025). Alaska Fire Science Consortium, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. www.frames.gov/afsc/acwe FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-16 Page 215 of 1055 and urban conflagration as ongoing, long-term hazards requiring sustained management and preparedness.233 Earlier CWPP technical modeling components are summarized in this plan’s narrative; final Zones of Concern mapping is retained as the primary spatial representation of wildfire risk (Figures 5-8 and 5-9). 233 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-17 Page 216 of 1055 Figure 5-8: Map of FNSB Wildland Fire Zones of Concern – Western Population Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Emergency Operations, Retrieved 6/2/2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-18 Page 217 of 1055 Figure 5-8 illustrates the distribution of CWPP Wildland Fire Zones of Concern in the western portion of the Borough, including areas of High, Very High, and Extreme hazard. This pattern indicates the concentration of wildfire exposure in areas with significant overlap between hazardous fuels, development, and limited access, particularly in communities located within the western population centers. Figure 5-9: Map of FNSB Wildland Fire Zones of Concern – Eastern Population Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Emergency Operations, Retrieved 6/2/2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-19 Page 218 of 1055 Figure 5-9 illustrates the distribution of CWPP Wildland Fire Zones of Concern in the eastern portion of the Borough. This pattern indicates that wildfire risk extends across multiple regions of the Borough, reinforcing that high-hazard conditions are not isolated but distributed across developed and developing areas. Together, Figures 5-8 and 5-9 demonstrate that wildfire hazard is both widespread and closely aligned with areas of existing and future development. 5.6 Wildfire Hazard Actions 5.6.1 Wildfire and Urban Conflagration - Current Mitigation Actions and Authorities The CWPP remains the primary local framework for identifying wildfire risk, prioritizing mitigation actions, and coordinating interagency and community-level wildfire preparedness in the Borough. Wildfire and urban conflagration mitigation in the FNSB occurs within a rapidly changing climate context in which fire weather has become a primary driver of increasing fire risk. Observed trends show that summer temperatures across Interior Alaska have increased since approximately 1970, with recent summers resembling the warmest conditions previously observed prior to that period. Since 1925, six of the ten warmest summers (June–August) in Alaska’s primary wildfire regions have occurred within the past 20 years, contributing to longer fire seasons and more frequent extreme fire weather conditions.234 Climate-driven changes in seasonal timing further amplify wildfire and urban conflagration risk. The snow season in Interior Alaska is now generally about two weeks shorter than it was several decades ago, with the greatest changes occurring in spring. The date when half of Alaska is snow-free now occurs approximately 11 days earlier than in the late 1990s, increasing the likelihood of early-season ignitions. In response to these observed trends, Alaska fire managers formally advanced the start of the wildfire season from May 1 to April 1 in 2006. Satellite observations further indicate that snow-free days are increasing by more 234 Grabinski, Z. & McFarland, H.R. Alaska’s Changing Wildfire Environment 2.0 (2025). Alaska Fire Science Consortium, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. http://www.frames.gov/afsc/acwe FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-20 Page 219 of 1055 than 4 days per decade across Interior and northern Alaska, thereby extending the window of flammable conditions.235 Within this evolving fire-weather environment, wildfire and urban conflagration risk in the FNSB is addressed through a coordinated, multi-agency framework involving federal, state, local, tribal, and private-sector partners. These efforts support wildfire prevention, preparedness, suppression, mitigation, and post-fire recovery, as well as structure-to-structure fire risk reduction within developed areas.236 The Alaska Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement establish formal cooperation among the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&W), and the U.S. Forest Service. This agreement enables participating agencies to share information, personnel, equipment, supplies, services, and funding for wildfire prevention, preparedness, fuels treatment, hazard mitigation, fire planning, suppression, and post-fire rehabilitation and restoration.237 The Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group (AWFCG) provides statewide leadership for coordination, collaboration, and communication among wildfire management agencies. AWFCG oversees interagency fire management practices and maintains committees focused on air quality and smoke management, education and prevention, fire research, fire weather, safety, operations, and fuels management—activities that support both wildfire mitigation and the reduction of urban conflagration risk.238 During periods of elevated fire activity, the Alaska Multi-Agency Coordination Group (AMAC) is activated to support incident prioritization, resource allocation, 235 Grabinski, Z. & McFarland, H.R. Alaska’s Changing Wildfire Environment 2.0 (2025). Alaska Fire Science Consortium, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. http://www.frames.gov/afsc/acwe. Brown, R. et al. (2017). Arctic Terrestrial Snow Cover. In: Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) 2017. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. 236 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. 237 Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Alaska Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement; Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (AIWFMP). 238 Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group (AWFCG). Memorandum of Understanding, Standard Operating Procedures, and committee charters. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-21 Page 220 of 1055 coordination of state and federal disaster responses, and anticipation of future resource needs. AMAC plays a critical role during complex fire seasons with multiple simultaneous incidents, including events that threaten populated areas and increase the potential for urban conflagration.239 The Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (AIWFMP) serves as the primary interagency reference for wildfire operational guidance in Alaska. Firefighter and public safety are emphasized as the overriding priority, and the plan promotes a cooperative, cost-effective approach to wildfire management across jurisdictions. The AWFCG is responsible for reviewing and updating the AIWFMP as conditions, policy, and best practices evolve.240 The AICC, located in Fairbanks at the AFS facility, functions as Alaska’s Geographic Coordination Center. AICC coordinates statewide tactical resources, logistics support, and predictive services, and provides preparedness levels, situation reporting, fire perimeter mapping, prescribed fire information, and weather forecasts to support wildfire and urban conflagration response decision-making.241 The CWPP is a central wildfire and urban conflagration mitigation tool for the FNSB. Developed collaboratively by local, state, and federal agencies, community organizations, and residents, the 2025 CWPP identifies wildfire risk across the Borough and prioritizes mitigation actions in high-risk areas, particularly within the wildland-urban interface and developed communities vulnerable to structure-to- structure fire spread.242 Alaska Firewise complements the CWPP by promoting community-level actions that reduce wildfire and urban conflagration risk, including defensible space, ignition-resistant construction practices, and shared responsibility among homeowners and agencies. Communities that adopt a CWPP and complete Firewise projects may be recognized as Firewise Communities/USA.243 239 Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group (AWFCG). Memorandum of Understanding, Standard Operating Procedures, and committee charters. 240 Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Alaska Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreement; Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (AIWFMP). Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group (AWFCG). Memorandum of Understanding, Standard Operating Procedures, and committee charters. 241 Alaska Interagency Coordination Center (AICC); Bureau of Land Management Alaska Fire Service (AFS). 242 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. 243 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Firewise USA® Program; Alaska Firewise Program. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-22 Page 221 of 1055 The BLM AFS, headquartered at Fort Wainwright within the FNSB, provides wildland fire suppression services for Department of the Interior and Native Corporation lands statewide. In addition to suppression, AFS supports fuels management, aviation operations, fire policy implementation, and operation of advanced systems such as the Alaska Lightning Detection System, contributing directly to the protection of communities and infrastructure within and adjacent to the Borough.244 5.6.2 Wildfire and Urban Conflagration Hazard Mitigation Successes The FNSB, in coordination with the Alaska DNR and interagency partners, has implemented a range of mitigation actions that have reduced wildfire and urban conflagration risk over time. These efforts emphasize long-term planning, fuels management, responder readiness, and sustained public education and outreach, recognizing both resource constraints and evolving fire risk conditions.245 A Borough-wide CWPP was first completed in 2006, establishing a comprehensive framework to identify wildfire risk and prioritize mitigation actions across the borough. The CWPP introduced an exposure-based approach that identified Zones of Concern both within and outside established fire service areas, providing a defensible basis for mitigation planning and investment. This framework continues to inform wildfire and urban conflagration risk reduction efforts.246 To support fire-resilient development and emergency access, the FNSB Emergency Services Commission adopted a resolution recognizing the principles of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1141, Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildland, Rural, and Suburban Areas. This action established guidance for road access, water supply, and emergency service infrastructure to reduce wildfire and structure-to-structure fire risk associated with land-use change.247 244 Alaska Interagency Coordination Center (AICC); Bureau of Land Management Alaska Fire Service (AFS). 245 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2006 and 2025 Updates. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. 246 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2006 and 2025 Updates. 247 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). NFPA 1141: Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildland, Rural, and Suburban Areas (2012 Edition). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-23 Page 222 of 1055 Significant mitigation progress was achieved through hazardous fuels reduction projects implemented prior to the current update cycle. Approximately 2,300 acres of silvicultural fuels treatments were completed through extensive interagency coordination, public engagement, and permitting. Portions of this work were supported by $1.4 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding, and all funded projects were completed by the end of 2020. These treatments reduced wildfire intensity adjacent to communities and lowered the potential for ember exposure relevant to urban conflagration risk.248 Between 2021 and 2026, wildfire mitigation efforts within the Borough focused primarily on education, preparedness, training, and outreach, reflecting staffing and funding limitations that constrained implementation of formal Firewise community projects during this period. Firewise principles, including defensible space, ignition-resistant practices, evacuation readiness, and smoke awareness, were incorporated into broader emergency preparedness outreach rather than delivered through standalone Firewise programs.249 The Borough conducted extensive community preparedness outreach through home shows, fairs, expos, military newcomer orientations, senior outreach events, and wildfire-season engagement. These efforts provided opportunities to communicate information about wildland fire and urban conflagration risks, evacuation procedures, smoke impacts, and personal mitigation actions to residents in high-risk areas, supporting risk reduction through increased awareness and preparedness.250 Responder readiness and situational awareness were strengthened through training, exercises, and technology investments. The Borough supported wildfire-related tabletop, functional, and full-scale exercises; evacuation and sheltering exercises; and interagency coordination drills. Mobile GIS capabilities and updated high-resolution aerial imagery enhanced emergency response 248 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2006 and 2025 Updates. U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Fuels Reduction Program Records. 249 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. 250 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-24 Page 223 of 1055 planning, access mapping, and structure identification, critical to both wildfire and urban fire response.251 Volunteer and auxiliary capabilities further supported mitigation and response. Citizen Corps and Volunteer in Policing (VIP) programs contributed to wildfire season activities, including traffic control, evacuation support, animal sheltering, community information delivery, and smoke-related assistance. These activities reduced operational strain on primary responders and improved community resilience during wildfire and urban fire events.252 Collectively, these mitigation successes demonstrate sustained progress in reducing wildfire and urban conflagration risk within the FNSB through realistic, capacity-based actions that emphasize planning, education, responder readiness, and community engagement.253 5.6.3 City of Fairbanks The City of Fairbanks has adopted by ordinance the family of International Code Council (ICC) model codes, including the International Building Code (IBC), International Fire Code (IFC), International Mechanical Code, International Fuel Gas Code, and International Residential Code. These codes establish minimum standards for building construction, fire protection systems, life safety features, and emergency access within the City.254 Adoption and enforcement of the ICC codes support reducing urban conflagration risk by addressing structural fire resistance, fire separation, fire suppression systems, means of egress, and access for emergency response. These measures 251 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) GIS Program; Alaska Division of Forestry and Fire Protection (DFFP). 252 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. 253 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2006 and 2025 Updates. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. 254 International Code Council (ICC). International Building Code, International Fire Code, and related ICC model codes (adopted by local ordinance). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-25 Page 224 of 1055 reduce the likelihood of structure-to-structure fire spread and support effective initial response by local fire departments within developed areas of the City.255 5.6.4 City of North Pole The City of North Pole has adopted the same family of ICC model codes as the City of Fairbanks, including the IBC, IFC, International Mechanical Code, International Fuel Gas Code, and International Residential Code. These adopted codes establish consistent minimum standards for building and fire safety within the City.256 Implementation of these codes helps mitigate urban conflagration hazards by regulating construction practices, fire protection systems, and emergency access in developed areas. Consistent application of these standards supports life safety, reduces structural fire risk, and limits the potential for fire spread between adjacent buildings during urban fire events.257 5.6.5 FNSB The FNSB is responsible for the safety and resilience of Borough-owned structures, including public facilities such as libraries and administrative buildings. For new construction and major renovations, the Borough conducts internal plan review using its own engineering staff to ensure conformance with applicable State of Alaska requirements and the ICC family of model codes.258 In addition to code compliance, the Borough must meet the standards of its property insurance provider, FM Global, which often exceed minimum code requirements. These standards commonly include enhanced fire protection 255 International Code Council (ICC). International Building Code, International Fire Code, and related ICC model codes (adopted by local ordinance). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance – Structural Fire and Urban Conflagration Risk Reduction. 256 International Code Council (ICC). International Building Code, International Fire Code, and related ICC model codes (adopted by local ordinance). 257 International Code Council (ICC). International Building Code, International Fire Code, and related ICC model codes (adopted by local ordinance). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance – Structural Fire and Urban Conflagration Risk Reduction. 258 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Borough Facilities Design, Engineering, and Construction Practices. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-26 Page 225 of 1055 measures such as automatic fire sprinkler systems, fire detection, and loss-prevention features that reduce fire severity and limit damage.259 Application of these enhanced standards strengthens mitigation of both urban conflagration and critical-facility fire risk by reducing the probability of fire spread within and between Borough-owned structures and by supporting continuity of essential public services following fire events.260 5.7 Fire Protection Services and Urban Conflagration Response Context Fire protection and initial response to urban conflagration within the FNSB are primarily the responsibility of local fire departments, including municipal, borough, volunteer, and military fire services operating within defined service areas. These departments provide first response to structure fires and serve as the initial line of defense against structure-to-structure fire spread in developed areas.261 Urban conflagration incidents typically require a rapid initial attack to prevent escalation, particularly in areas with high structural density, limited access, or constrained firefighting water supplies. Local fire departments, therefore, play a critical role in life safety and property protection during the early stages of urban fire incidents.262 As fire incidents escalate beyond the capacity of local departments, mutual aid and interagency assistance may be requested from neighboring jurisdictions, state resources, and federal partners. Wildland fire agencies may support urban 259 FM Global. Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets and Insurance Standards for Public Facilities. 260 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Borough Facilities Design, Engineering, and Construction Practices. FM Global. Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets and Insurance Standards for Public Facilities. 261 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance – Structural Fire and Urban Conflagration Risk Reduction. 262 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance – Structural Fire and Urban Conflagration Risk Reduction. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). NFPA 1141: Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildland, Rural, and Suburban Areas. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-27 Page 226 of 1055 conflagration response when fires originate in or spread from adjacent wildland areas, or when prolonged incidents strain local response capacity and resources.263 Fire protection capabilities within the Borough vary by location and are influenced by service area boundaries, access conditions, water availability, and distance from response resources. These factors contribute to differences in urban conflagration risk across the Borough and are considered in wildfire and urban fire mitigation planning, including the CWPP.264 263 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. Alaska Interagency Coordination Center (AICC); Alaska Division of Forestry and Fire Protection (DFFP). Interagency Fire Response and Mutual Aid Frameworks. 264 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), 2025 Update. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). NFPA 1141: Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildland, Rural, and Suburban Areas. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 5-28 Page 227 of 1055 6. Severe Weather Hazard Profile Severe weather is a persistent and high-impact hazard for the FNSB. Windstorms, winter storms, and extreme cold events routinely produce cascading impacts, including prolonged power outages, infrastructure damage, transportation disruptions, supply-chain stress, and increased risk to life safety. These events frequently require activation of warming shelters, extended emergency operations, and external assistance, affecting both urban and rural areas of the Borough.265 A representative severe wind event illustrates the scale and consequences of severe weather in the FNSB. During this event, sustained winds of approximately 27 miles per hour, with gusts up to 55 miles per hour, caused widespread tree falls, localized structural damage, and extensive electrical outages. At the peak of the storm, more than 10,000 GVEA customers were without power. Approximately 3,000 to 5,000 customers remained without service more than 24 hours later, with restoration for some extending multiple days. School closures occurred across the Borough, and warming shelters were activated at West Valley High School and North Pole High School to address life-safety needs during cold conditions.266 Extended power outages during this event generated significant secondary impacts. Local retailers rapidly sold out of generators and alternative heating equipment, including kerosene heaters, within hours to days following the storm. These shortages highlighted the community’s reliance on electricity for heat and water, as well as the limited redundancy in local supply chains during prolonged severe weather events.267 Due to the severity and geographic extent of damage, the Governor of Alaska declared a state disaster for the FNSB. The declaration enabled state support for emergency response and post-event recovery, including assistance for damaged infrastructure, extended utility outages, and additional personnel hours. Within the City of Fairbanks alone, hundreds of residences and businesses experienced prolonged power outages, 265 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Severe weather summaries and storm impact reports for Interior Alaska. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska climate characteristics and extreme weather context (Rick Thoman, climatologist). 266 Fairbanks Daily News‐Miner, November 15, 2013, windstorm impacts; State of Alaska disaster declaration statements 267 Fairbanks Daily News‐Miner, November 15, 2013, reporting on generator and heating supply shortages following severe winter storms. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-1 Page 228 of 1055 reinforcing the vulnerability of both urban and rural areas to severe-weather-driven infrastructure failures, as illustrated in Figure 6-1.268 Figure 6-1: Power Outage for over Thirty‐Six Hours Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Community Planning, “Hazard Mitigation Plan: A Multi-Hazard, Multi- Jurisdictional Plan for the Fairbanks North Star Borough and its Communities," 1/27/2014 Figure 6-1 illustrates extended power outage conditions resulting from a severe weather event in the Borough. This image demonstrates the cascading impacts of severe weather on power infrastructure, including prolonged outages and associated risks to life safety, particularly during extreme cold conditions. 6.1 Nature and Location Weather describes the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, including temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloud cover, visibility, and wind, while climate represents long- term averages and variability, typically measured over a 30-year period. Climate context is critical to understanding the range and severity of weather extremes affecting the FNSB. Short-term weather forecasts provide daily-to-weekly predictions, while seasonal 268 Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reporting on November 2013 windstorm impacts; State of Alaska disaster declaration statements. Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Community Planning. Hazard Mitigation Plan: A Multi-Hazard, Multi-Jurisdictional Plan for the Fairbanks North Star Borough and its Communities (2014). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-2 Page 229 of 1055 outlooks and climate analyses describe broader patterns that influence the likelihood and impacts of severe weather events.269 The climate in Interior Alaska is strongly influenced by latitude, elevation, and geographic location. Fairbanks is located at approximately 64°50′ north latitude, resulting in extreme seasonal variation in daylight, ranging from nearly 22 hours of sunlight in June to fewer than four hours in December. Elevations within the Borough range from approximately 436 feet to over 5,700 feet above sea level, contributing to localized differences in temperature, wind exposure, and snow accumulation. The Borough lies between the Brooks Range to the north and the Alaska Range to the south, placing it within the continental Interior where air mass transitions can be abrupt and severe.270 The FNSB experiences a continental subarctic climate characterized by long, cold winters; relatively warm summers; large annual and seasonal temperature variability; low humidity; and generally light but variable precipitation. Winter conditions regularly include temperatures below 0°F, with extreme cold events below −40°F occurring most winters. Summer temperatures are comparatively moderate but can reach 80°F or higher during warm periods (Figure 6-2), illustrating the wide thermal range experienced across the year. This variability increases the likelihood that severe weather events will stress infrastructure systems and human health.271 Recent research conducted by the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness (ACCAP) indicates that winter rain events are an increasingly significant hazard in Interior Alaska, producing prolonged icy conditions and complex cascading impacts across transportation, utilities, and emergency services.272 269 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Definitions of weather, climate, and severe weather; Interior Alaska forecast and climate context. 270 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Climate characteristics of Fairbanks and Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, climatologist). 271 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Climate characteristics of Fairbanks and Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, climatologist). National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI); Alaska Climate Research Center. Fairbanks temperature extremes and climatological normals. 272 Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness (ACCAP), Winter Rain in Interior Alaska: Community Impacts, Effective Responses, and Policy Implications, Policy Brief, Spring 2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-3 Page 230 of 1055 Figure 6-2: New Daily High Temperature Record in Fairbanks, August 3, 2021 Source: US National Weather Service, Fairbanks, Alaska Figure 6-2 illustrates extreme summer temperature conditions recorded in Fairbanks. This example demonstrates the wide annual temperature variability in the Borough and highlights the potential for heat-related stress on infrastructure systems and human health, even in a predominantly cold-climate environment. Such temperature extremes, when combined with longer seasonal warming trends, contribute to increasing variability and complexity in severe weather patterns. Compared to much of the contiguous United States, normal winter conditions in Interior Alaska would be considered severe. In the FNSB, severe weather most commonly involves extended periods of extreme cold, ice fog, dangerous wind chill, and heavy snow, often occurring in combination. Freezing rain and wet, heavy snow events, particularly during shoulder seasons, can create additional hazards by damaging trees, power lines, and structures, and by severely degrading road and pedestrian conditions. These hazards affect the entire Borough, including urban Fairbanks, outlying communities, and rural areas with limited access and longer response times.273 Severe weather exposure is borough-wide, but vulnerability varies by location. Areas with single access routes, limited emergency services coverage, or heavy reliance on electrical power for heating and water are particularly susceptible to prolonged impacts. Upland and hillside areas are more exposed to high winds and blowing snow, while low-lying areas may experience colder temperatures due to inversions, with communities such as 273 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Definitions of weather, climate, and severe weather; Interior Alaska forecast and climate context. State of Alaska. 2023 State of Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan; National Weather Service Fairbanks Forecast Office severe weather impact summaries. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-4 Page 231 of 1055 North Pole often recording temperatures significantly colder than Fairbanks during extreme cold events.274 6.2 Historical Occurrences The FNSB has one of the most comprehensive climate records in Interior Alaska. Fairbanks hosts the only climatological station in the Interior with an unbroken record exceeding 100 years, and it remains one of 21 first-order weather stations in Alaska. While seasonal mean temperature trends provide useful context, extreme values and their duration are the most significant indicators for understanding severe weather risk and operational impacts in the Borough.275 Temperature records show substantial warming across most seasons, while precipitation records, consistent since approximately 1916, demonstrate high interannual variability. Long-term analyses indicate that changes in temperature and precipitation patterns have increased the likelihood of compound hazards, including severe winter events, rain-on-snow episodes, and conditions conducive to drought and wildfire in other seasons, as illustrated in Figure 6-3.276 274 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Climate characteristics of Fairbanks and Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, climatologist). State of Alaska. 2023 State of Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan; National Weather Service Fairbanks Forecast Office severe weather impact summaries. 275 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Fairbanks first-order station history and Interior Alaska climate records. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Long-term temperature and precipitation records (Rick Thoman, climatologist). 276 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Long-term temperature and precipitation records (Rick Thoman, climatologist). State of Alaska. 2023 State of Alaska Hazard Mitigation Plan. Alaska DHS&EM; FEMA-approved. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-5 Page 232 of 1055 Figure 6-3: Mean Annual Temperature Trends – FNSB Source: Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness / University of Alaska Fairbanks. Figure 6-3 illustrates long-term mean annual temperature trends in the FNSB based on historical climate data. This pattern indicates a warming trend over time, which contributes to increased variability in seasonal weather conditions and a higher likelihood of extreme events, including severe winter weather, rain-on-snow events, and conditions that influence wildfire activity. These long-term trends provide important context for interpreting historical severe weather events and their impacts on the Borough. The following historic severe weather events exemplify the necessity of reviewing severe weather as an FNSB hazard: 6.2.1 Extreme Cold Extreme cold events have repeatedly disrupted daily life, transportation, utilities, and aviation operations in the Borough. Interior Alaska experiences some of the coldest winter temperatures in the United States, and the severity and duration of cold events, rather than isolated minimum temperatures, are the primary drivers of operational and life- safety impacts.277 277 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Fairbanks temperature records, extreme cold summaries, and climatological observations. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-6 Page 233 of 1055 The historical record documents multiple benchmark extreme cold events. In December 1961 Fairbanks International Airport recorded an all-time December minimum temperature of -62°F, a record that remains a reference point for extreme cold in the Interior. That same month, extended periods of severe cold produced prolonged ice fog conditions, with more than 20 hours of dense ice fog recorded, significantly reducing visibility and disrupting surface and air transportation.278 In January 1989, Fairbanks experienced one of the most severe cold outbreaks on record, with temperatures ranging from approximately −50°F to −70°F for nearly two consecutive weeks. The persistence of the cold halted many routine activities, grounded aircraft for more than six days, strained utility systems, and created widespread life-safety concerns, particularly for residents dependent on electricity and fuel for heating.279 From December 27, 2008, through January 12, 2009, Fairbanks recorded 15 consecutive days with minimum temperatures at or below −40°F, the longest such cold snap since 1973. This prolonged event caused widespread operational disruptions, increased emergency response activity, and highlighted the vulnerability of transportation systems, fuel delivery, and critical infrastructure to extended extreme cold conditions.280 Most recently, late December 2025 through early January 2026 produced one of the coldest and most persistent early-winter periods on record for the Borough. Observations documented an extended run of daily minimum temperatures below -15°F, multiple days below −40°F, and prolonged periods with daily maximum temperatures at or below 0°F. The duration of this event placed sustained stress on power generation and distribution Fairbanks. Fairbanks and Interior Alaska climate records and extreme temperature analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 278 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Fairbanks temperature records, extreme cold summaries, and climatological observations. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC). Ice fog frequency and extreme cold condition summaries for Fairbanks. 279 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Fairbanks temperature records, extreme cold summaries, and climatological observations. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks and Interior Alaska climate records and extreme temperature analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 280 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Fairbanks temperature records, extreme cold summaries, and climatological observations. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks and Interior Alaska climate records and extreme temperature analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-7 Page 234 of 1055 systems, transportation networks, emergency services, public services, and household heating resources across both urban and rural areas of the Borough.281 These events illustrate that extreme cold in the FNSB is best characterized by multi-day to multi-week persistence, which amplifies impacts through cumulative strain on infrastructure, fuel supplies, emergency response capacity, and human health. As documented by the ACRC and UAF climate analyses, the Interior continues to experience significant cold extremes even as long-term average temperatures increase, reinforcing extreme cold as a continuing, high-consequence hazard for the Borough, as illustrated in Figure 6-4.282 Figure 6-4: 2025-2026 All-Time Record Coldest December-March in Fairbanks Source: National Weather Service, Fairbanks Forecast Office Figure 6-4 illustrates record cold temperature conditions observed in Fairbanks during the 2025–2026 winter season. This pattern highlights the persistence and severity of extreme 281 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Fairbanks temperature records, extreme cold summaries, and climatological observations. National Weather Service Fairbanks; Alaska Climate Research Center. Winter 2025–2026 preliminary climate summary and temperature persistence analysis. 282 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks and Interior Alaska climate records and extreme temperature analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Interior Alaska climate variability and extreme cold context within long-term warming trends. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-8 Page 235 of 1055 cold events in the Borough and demonstrates how prolonged periods of low temperatures can intensify impacts on infrastructure systems, transportation, and life safety. These extended cold periods place cumulative stress on heating systems, fuel supplies, and emergency response resources, amplifying overall vulnerability. 6.2.2 Heavy Snow Heavy snow events have repeatedly caused significant impacts on transportation, infrastructure, and structures across the FNSB. Interior Alaska snowfall hazards are defined not only by total accumulation but by storm timing, snow density, and persistence, all of which influence structural loading, tree failure, and transportation safety.283 Historic records document extreme snowfall events as early as January 1937, when one of the largest two-day snowfall totals on record was observed, and in February 1966, which remains the snowiest February recorded in Fairbanks, with more than 43 inches of total snowfall and a 24-hour record of 20.1 inches. These events provided early evidence of the Borough’s vulnerability to high-impact winter storms that can overwhelm transportation and maintenance capacity.284 More recent heavy snow events demonstrate continued exposure and evolving consequences. In September 1992, an early wet snowfall accumulated on trees still in leaf, resulting in widespread tree failure, downed power lines, and prolonged outages affecting approximately 3,600 residences. In March 2009, more than 11 inches of snow fell within 36 hours, contributing to numerous traffic accidents, road closures, and delayed emergency response across the Borough.285 Heavy snow has also led to structural failures and impacts on critical infrastructure. During February 2011, record snowfall contributed to hazardous transportation conditions, including a railcar derailment caused by snow and ice accumulation on the tracks. Additional structural failures occurred in 2018 and 2020, when prolonged heavy snow 283 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Historical snowfall records, storm summaries, and impact reports for Interior Alaska. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Snowfall climatology and winter storm analyses for Fairbanks and Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 284 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Historical snowfall records, storm summaries, and impact reports for Interior Alaska. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC). Fairbanks monthly and daily snowfall extremes, including February 1966 records. 285 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Historical snowfall records, storm summaries, and impact reports for Interior Alaska. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Snowfall climatology and winter storm analyses for Fairbanks and Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-9 Page 236 of 1055 loads caused the collapse of the historic Masonic Temple, the F&H Fitness Studio, and an occupied warehouse on Deere Street, underscoring the risk posed by sustained snow loading to both historic and modern structures.286 The December 2021–January 2022 winter storm sequence further demonstrated the compound nature of heavy snow hazards in Interior Alaska. Deep snow accumulation followed by freezing rain created layered snow-and-ice conditions that shut down travel, damaged infrastructure, and contributed to widespread power outages prior to the onset of extreme cold. This event illustrates how heavy snow, when combined with freezing rain and subsequent temperature drops, can rapidly escalate into a borough-wide emergency with cascading impacts to transportation, utilities, and life safety.287 6.2.3 Freezing Rain Freezing rain events, while less frequent than snowstorms in the FNSB, have produced disproportionately severe and widespread impacts due to rapid ice accretion on trees, power lines, road surfaces, and structures, as well as on snow. In Interior Alaska, freezing rain typically occurs during transition periods when warm air aloft overrides subfreezing surface temperatures, creating high-impact conditions that are difficult to forecast and mitigate.288 Freezing rain events are relatively infrequent but high-consequence hazards in the Borough and are becoming more frequent as regional winter temperatures warm and precipitation patterns shift.289 These events can affect the entire Borough simultaneously, though impacts vary by elevation, vegetation density, and road- maintenance jurisdiction. Given the Interior’s unique climate, ice can adhere to surfaces, making them icy until spring melt. This persistence creates prolonged hazardous conditions that affect multiple community lifelines, including transportation networks, electric power systems, and fuel 286 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Historical snowfall records, storm summaries, and impact reports for Interior Alaska. Fairbanks North Star Borough; NWS Fairbanks. Structural damage and transportation disruption reports associated with heavy snow events. 287 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Historical snowfall records, storm summaries, and impact reports for Interior Alaska. National Weather Service Fairbanks; Alaska Climate Research Center; UAF SNAP / ACCAP. December 2021–January 2022 winter storm sequence and compound snow-ice event summaries. 288 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Freezing rain event summaries, ice accretion impacts, and storm documentation for Interior Alaska. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska freezing rain climatology and winter transition event analysis (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 289 Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness. Winter rain in Interior Alaska: Community impacts, effective responses, and policy implications (Eleanor Greenbaum, Policy Fellow, et al.). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-10 Page 237 of 1055 and supply delivery. This ice accumulation can lead to transportation challenges, resulting in school and business closures (winter rain has accounted for 12 of the school district’s 18 closures since 2010), EMS delays, and delays in the delivery of essential goods. These disruptions have cascading effects on community functionality, limiting access to healthcare, emergency services, and critical supplies during and after events. Icy conditions can also be extremely hazardous to personal safety; in seven of nine large and compound events from 2013 to 2024, the number of cars in crashes involving injury, fatality, or substantial damage increased compared with the same days the week before, when adjusted for traffic volume. Additional safety concerns can include slips, trips, and falls, impacts on homeless populations, and other hard-to-measure safety concerns. Populations particularly vulnerable to these conditions include residents without reliable heating or transportation, individuals experiencing homelessness, older adults, and those living in remote or low-maintenance road service areas. Ice on power lines and vegetation that falls on power lines contribute to outages: winter rain accounted for six of the GVEA’s ten longest outages and four of the ten largest-scale events in terms of the number of members impacted. Winter rain events can also contribute to wildlife die-offs, and bring further challenges come spring melt. These impacts also contribute to significant economic losses, including increased emergency response costs, infrastructure repair, business interruption, and long-term maintenance burdens.290 Historic records document damaging freezing rain events dating back decades. In February 2003, nearly 0.3 inches of freezing rain were recorded in the Fairbanks area, resulting in hazardous conditions and localized infrastructure impacts. From November 22–24, 2010, a prolonged freezing rain event caused extensive ice accumulation on trees and power lines, leading to dangerous road conditions and widespread power outages across portions of the Borough.291 A particularly damaging freezing rain event occurred on November 13–15, 2013, resulting in a State and FEMA disaster declaration (DR-4162-AK). During this event, freezing rain combined with high winds and pre-existing snow loads caused widespread tree failure, structural damage, and school and government facility closures, resulting in prolonged power outages affecting thousands of residents. As outages extended into multiple days 290 Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness. Winter rain in Interior Alaska: Community impacts, effective responses, and policy implications (Eleanor Greenbaum, Policy Fellow, et al.). 291 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Freezing rain event summaries, ice accretion impacts, and storm documentation for Interior Alaska. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC). Historical freezing rain observations and ice storm impacts for Fairbanks. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-11 Page 238 of 1055 and temperatures dropped below −20°F, life-safety risks increased substantially, particularly for residents dependent on electricity for heat and water.292 In December 2021 through early January 2022, a winter storm marked an unprecedented mid-winter freezing rain-on-snow event in the FNSB, commonly referred to locally as “Icemageddon.” During this event, up to 1 inch of ice accumulated on top of a deep, pre-existing snowpack, creating layered snow-and-ice conditions that drove a 70% increase in significant car crashes, caused power outages impacting 20,000 GVEA members, contributed to a 35-40% decrease in moose populations, and came with significant cost to entities like DOT&PF, who paid approximately $4.8 million to respond to the event.293 Travel was largely shut down for multiple days, emergency response operations were significantly constrained, and the event was followed by extreme deep-freeze temperatures, greatly increasing life-safety risks for residents without reliable heat or access to it. This event illustrates how freezing rain can act as a trigger hazard, initiating cascading failures across power, transportation, emergency response, and supply chain systems, as illustrated in Figure 6-5.294 292 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Freezing rain event summaries, ice accretion impacts, and storm documentation for Interior Alaska. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); State of Alaska DHS&EM. Disaster declaration DR-4162-AK and associated impact summaries. 293 Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness. Winter rain in Interior Alaska: Community impacts, effective responses, and policy implications (Eleanor Greenbaum, Policy Fellow, et al.). 294 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Freezing rain event summaries, ice accretion impacts, and storm documentation for Interior Alaska. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska freezing rain climatology and winter transition event analysis (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Alaska’s Changing Environment 2.0 (2024): Freezing rain, rain-on-snow, and compound winter storm trends in Interior Alaska. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-12 Page 239 of 1055 Figure 6-5: Freezing Rain and Ice Accretion in Interior Alaska Source: Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness / University of Alaska Fairbanks. Figure 6-5 illustrates freezing rain and ice accretion conditions in Interior Alaska during a significant winter weather event. This image demonstrates how ice accumulation on trees, power lines, and infrastructure can lead to widespread outages, transportation disruptions, and cascading impacts across multiple community lifelines. Unlike other precipitation events, ice accumulation may persist for extended periods, prolonging hazardous conditions and delaying recovery. As documented by ACRC and UAF climate analyses, freezing rain events in Interior Alaska increasingly pose the risk of compound winter storms, in which snow, freezing rain, wind, and subsequent extreme cold interact to produce cascading impacts. These events illustrate that even relatively short periods of freezing rain can rapidly escalate into borough-wide emergencies when combined with an existing snowpack and cold FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-13 Page 240 of 1055 temperatures, reinforcing the need to evaluate freezing rain as a distinct hazard within the Borough’s severe weather risk framework.295 The December 2021 winter rain event (“Icemageddon”) demonstrated the severity of this hazard in the FNSB, resulting in widespread outages, transportation disruptions, and significant economic and operational impacts across the region. 296 Mitigation actions addressing freezing rain impacts are incorporated into the Severe Weather Mitigation Actions (Table 11-3), including measures to improve backup power resilience, maintain transportation access, and enhance public communication before and during events. Although freezing rain is grouped under severe weather, its unique characteristics, including long-lasting ice persistence, high infrastructure impacts, and increasing frequency, warrant consideration as an emerging standalone hazard within Interior Alaska’s hazard landscape. Risk varies across the Borough based on infrastructure exposure, vegetation, and maintenance capacity, with transportation corridors, overhead utilities, and remote communities facing elevated vulnerability. 6.2.4 Lightning Lightning is a recurring summer hazard in Interior Alaska and occurs more frequently in the FNSB than in most other regions of the state. While lightning events are less frequent than winter hazards, they pose direct risks to life safety and are the primary natural ignition source for wildland fires across the Interior.297 Climatological records indicate that Fairbanks experiences thunderstorms regularly during the summer months, with lightning most common from late June through July, particularly during warm, unstable periods. Lightning strikes are more frequent in upland 295 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska freezing rain climatology and winter transition event analysis (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Alaska’s Changing Environment 2.0 (2024): Freezing rain, rain-on-snow, and compound winter storm trends in Interior Alaska. 296 Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness (ACCAP), Winter Rain in Interior Alaska: Community Impacts, Effective Responses, and Policy Implications, Spring 2026. 297 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Interior Alaska thunderstorm and lightning climatology; documented lightning injury and fatality incidents. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Lightning occurrence patterns and wildfire ignition statistics for Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-14 Page 241 of 1055 and hill areas surrounding Fairbanks than on the Tanana Valley floor, increasing wildfire ignition risk in areas with continuous forest fuels and limited access.298 Lightning has caused documented life-safety incidents within the Borough. In 1993, a lightning strike injured an individual at a ball field in North Pole, illustrating the risk posed to people engaged in outdoor activities during summer storms. Regional incidents further underscore this hazard; in 1986, a fatal lightning strike near Tok demonstrated the broader lightning risk in Interior Alaska, particularly in open terrain and during rapidly developing thunderstorms.299 Beyond direct injury, lightning is responsible for the vast majority of acreage burned by wildland fires in Alaska, including within the FNSB. A single thunderstorm can generate multiple lightning-caused ignitions over a short period, stretching detection, initial attack, and suppression resources, especially in remote or difficult-to-access areas. This characteristic makes lightning a key driver of large and complex wildfire seasons in Interior Alaska.300 As documented by ACRC and UAF climate analyses, warmer summer temperatures and longer snow-free seasons have increased the likelihood of lightning occurring under dry fuel conditions, raising the probability that strikes result in sustained fire starts. This reinforces lightning as a continuing and consequential severe weather hazard for the Borough, with impacts extending beyond the point of strike to regional wildfire risk, smoke exposure, and emergency response demands.301 6.2.5 High Winds High-wind events have caused widespread damage across the Borough, particularly from tree failures, power outages, transportation disruptions, and infrastructure damage. While extreme wind speeds occur less frequently than winter precipitation hazards, wind 298 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Interior Alaska thunderstorm and lightning climatology; documented lightning injury and fatality incidents. University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Alaska lightning, wildfire ignition, and summer climate variability analyses. 299 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Interior Alaska thunderstorm and lightning climatology; documented lightning injury and fatality incidents. National Weather Service; State of Alaska public safety records. Documented lightning injury (1993 North Pole) and fatality (1986 Tok). 300 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Lightning occurrence patterns and wildfire ignition statistics for Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Alaska lightning, wildfire ignition, and summer climate variability analyses. 301 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Lightning occurrence patterns and wildfire ignition statistics for Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC). Climate-driven changes in lightning-fire interactions and dry thunderstorm risk. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-15 Page 242 of 1055 significantly amplifies impacts when combined with snow, ice, or freezing rain, increasing both the severity and geographic extent of damage.302 Historic wind events demonstrated the Borough’s vulnerability. In September 1985, wind gusts of approximately 51 miles per hour were recorded at FIA, downed trees and power lines, leaving an estimated 3,000 homes without power. In April 2002, gusts of up to 50 miles per hour were reported near Eielson AFB, resulting in scattered infrastructure damage and hazardous travel conditions.303 More recent windstorms illustrate increasing operational impacts. On February 25, 2011, high winds combined with heavy wet snow to create severe drifting and blowing snow conditions, leading to the closure of major highways, including extended sections of the Parks and Steese Highways. On November 14, 2013, a major wind event associated with a severe winter storm resulted in a State and FEMA disaster declaration (DR-4162-AK). During this event, wind gusts of 50–60 miles per hour downed trees and power lines across the Borough, leaving nearly 14,000 homes without power, some for up to a week.304 On December 30, 2016, strong winds combined with heavy snowfall affected much of the FNSB, resulting in power outages impacting nearly 30,000 customers. Although most outages were restored relatively quickly, the event underscored the vulnerability of the electrical distribution system to wind-driven winter storms.305 Since 2016, damaging wind impacts in the FNSB have increasingly occurred as part of compound winter storms rather than isolated wind events. During the winter of 2019, a series of severe winter storms resulted in a State and FEMA disaster declaration 302 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. High wind event summaries, wind climatology, and damage reports for Interior Alaska. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Wind climatology and compound winter storm analyses for Fairbanks and Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 303 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. High wind event summaries, wind climatology, and damage reports for Interior Alaska. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC). Historical wind extremes and observational records for Fairbanks International Airport and Eielson AFB. 304 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. High wind event summaries, wind climatology, and damage reports for Interior Alaska. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); State of Alaska DHS&EM. Disaster declaration DR-4162-AK and associated impact summaries. 305 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. High wind event summaries, wind climatology, and damage reports for Interior Alaska. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Wind climatology and compound winter storm analyses for Fairbanks and Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-16 Page 243 of 1055 (DR-4648-AK) and combined high winds with heavy snow and freezing rain, producing widespread power outages, tree damage, and prolonged travel disruptions. Similar wind-exacerbated impacts were observed during the December 2021–January 2022 freezing rain-on-snow event, when wind contributed to tree and powerline failures under extreme ice loads. More recently, in December 2022, storms demonstrated how even moderate winds interacting with heavy snow can trigger power outages by causing snow- laden trees to contact distribution lines. These events illustrate that wind remains a significant driver of severe weather impacts in the Borough, particularly when combined with winter precipitation.306 6.2.6 Wind Chill Extreme wind-chill conditions have posed recurring, severe life-safety risks in the FNSB, particularly when strong winds coincide with prolonged extreme cold. Wind chill significantly increases the rate of heat loss from exposed skin, accelerating the onset of frostbite and hypothermia events when ambient air temperatures alone might otherwise be survivable for short durations.307 Wind chill hazards are especially dangerous in rural, remote, and recreational areas of the Borough, where exposure times may be extended, and emergency response or rescue may be delayed due to distance, limited access, or weather-restricted travel conditions. Outdoor travel, subsistence activities, recreation, and occupational work during winter storms increase vulnerability to wind-chill exposure across the Interior.308 A notable wind-chill-related life-safety incident occurred in February 2011, when multiple snowmachiners became stranded in the White Mountains Recreation Area during consecutive winter storms. The combination of blowing snow, strong winds, and extreme cold produced dangerous wind-chill values, necessitating multi-day rescue operations. 306 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. High wind event summaries, wind climatology, and damage reports for Interior Alaska. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Wind climatology and compound winter storm analyses for Fairbanks and Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP; National Weather Service Fairbanks. Post-2016 wind-driven winter storm impacts and power outage analyses. 307 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Wind chill criteria, cold weather safety guidance, and Interior Alaska incident summaries. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Extreme cold and wind-chill analyses for Fairbanks and Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 308 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Wind chill criteria, cold weather safety guidance, and Interior Alaska incident summaries. University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Winter weather exposure, rural risk, and cold-weather vulnerability assessments. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-17 Page 244 of 1055 This incident highlighted the lethal potential of wind chill and the heightened vulnerability of individuals traveling or recreating outdoors during severe winter conditions.309 Wind chill hazards also compound the impacts of other severe weather events. Following major winter storms, including the December 2021–January 2022 ice and snow event, subsequent outbreaks of extreme cold significantly increased the risk of power outages, limited mobility, or inadequate heating for residents. In these situations, wind chill exacerbates the risk of hypothermia, strains emergency services, and prolongs recovery timelines, particularly for vulnerable populations such as older adults, individuals with medical conditions, and residents in housing that relies on electric heat.310 As documented by ACRC and UAF climate analyses, Interior Alaska continues to experience extreme cold air masses even as long-term average temperatures increase. When combined with wind, these conditions ensure that wind chill remains a persistent, high-consequence severe weather hazard for the Borough, requiring ongoing attention to preparedness, public messaging, and emergency response planning.311 6.3 Extent Extent describes the severity or magnitude of a hazard, including the intensity, geographic scale, and potential level of impact on the planning area. The extent of severe weather within the FNSB varies based on location, seasonal conditions, and specific event characteristics. The extent of severe weather events varies by hazard type and includes extreme cold temperatures, heavy snowfall, high winds, and winter rain events. These events may range from localized impacts to region-wide disruptions affecting transportation systems, utilities, and public safety. Duration and severity are key factors influencing the overall extent. 309 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Wind chill criteria, cold weather safety guidance, and Interior Alaska incident summaries. National Weather Service Fairbanks; Alaska State Troopers. February 2011 White Mountains Recreation Area rescue documentation. 310 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Extreme cold and wind-chill analyses for Fairbanks and Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC); UAF SNAP / ACCAP. Interaction of extreme cold, wind, and infrastructure disruption in Interior Alaska winter events. 311 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Extreme cold and wind-chill analyses for Fairbanks and Interior Alaska (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC); UAF SNAP / ACCAP. Interaction of extreme cold, wind, and infrastructure disruption in Interior Alaska winter events. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-18 Page 245 of 1055 In the FNSB, severe weather extent can include extreme cold temperatures below −40°F, heavy snowfall events exceeding 10 to 20 inches within short time periods, ice accretion from freezing rain exceeding several tenths of an inch, and wind gusts exceeding 50 miles per hour. Severe weather events may persist for multiple days to several weeks, particularly during prolonged cold-air outbreaks or compound winter storm sequences. Under these conditions, impacts may extend across the entire Borough, affecting utilities, transportation systems, and public safety at a regional scale and increasing the likelihood of cascading infrastructure disruptions and life-safety risks. Extent is further illustrated through hazard mapping and exposure analysis presented in Chapter 4. 6.4 Possible Impacts from Future Events Future severe weather events in the FNSB are expected to produce a range of life-safety, infrastructure, and operational impacts, particularly when hazards occur in combination or persist for extended durations. Severe winter weather, including extreme cold, heavy snow, freezing rain, high winds, wind chill, and ice fog, poses elevated risks to residents, responders, and critical systems across both urban and rural areas of the Borough.312 Life-safety impacts from future severe weather events may include hypothermia, frostbite, and carbon monoxide poisoning, particularly during prolonged power outages when residents rely on alternative or improperly vented heating sources. Extended cold exposure increases risk for vulnerable populations, including older adults, individuals with medical conditions, and residents experiencing housing instability.313 Severe weather events frequently disrupt power, water, wastewater, fuel delivery, and communications systems. Extreme cold can cause fuel gelling in storage tanks and supply lines, leading to failures in electric generation and heating systems. Frozen or buried pipes may fail during prolonged cold periods, particularly when snow cover is limited, resulting 312 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Severe weather impacts, winter storm hazards, wind chill guidance, and Interior Alaska event summaries. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Severe weather variability, compound hazards, and Interior Alaska climate analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 313 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Severe weather impacts, winter storm hazards, wind chill guidance, and Interior Alaska event summaries. Fairbanks North Star Borough Emergency Operations records; Alaska DHS&EM. Emergency response, sheltering, and life-safety impacts during severe weather events. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-19 Page 246 of 1055 in water and sanitary sewer disruptions. These infrastructure failures can cascade, compounding impacts and prolonging recovery timelines.314 Transportation disruptions are a critical consequence of severe weather in the Interior. Heavy snow, freezing rain, ice fog, and high winds can close highways, ground aircraft, and disrupt rail service, restricting the movement of people, goods, and emergency services. Communities not connected to the road system are particularly vulnerable, as air transportation is often the sole means of access for food, fuel, medical supplies, and medevac services. During prolonged severe weather, residents may be stranded for days or weeks, and shortages of essential goods may occur locally.315 Emergency response operations may be constrained by hazardous travel conditions, reduced visibility, and increased demand for services, including warming centers, emergency sheltering, welfare checks, and medical response. Severe weather events place sustained strain on emergency responders, utilities, healthcare providers, and volunteer organizations, particularly during multi-day or multi-week incidents. Rural, off- road systems, and low-access communities are especially vulnerable due to longer response times and limited redundancy in infrastructure and services.316 Heavy snow and freezing rain may cause structural damage through excessive snow loading, roof collapse, tree failure, and downed power lines. Ice storms can create hazardous travel conditions, leading to vehicle accidents and pedestrian injuries, while subsequent thawing can cause localized flooding from rapid runoff and blocked drainage systems.317 314 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Severe weather impacts, winter storm hazards, wind chill guidance, and Interior Alaska event summaries. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Severe weather variability, compound hazards, and Interior Alaska climate analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 315 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Severe weather impacts, winter storm hazards, wind chill guidance, and Interior Alaska event summaries. UAF SNAP / ACCAP. Transportation vulnerability, rural access risk, and supply chain sensitivity to severe weather in Interior Alaska. 316 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Severe weather impacts, winter storm hazards, wind chill guidance, and Interior Alaska event summaries. Fairbanks North Star Borough Emergency Operations records; Alaska DHS&EM. Emergency response, sheltering, and life-safety impacts during severe weather events. 317 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Severe weather impacts, winter storm hazards, wind chill guidance, and Interior Alaska event summaries. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Severe weather variability, compound hazards, and Interior Alaska climate analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-20 Page 247 of 1055 High winds and wind-chill conditions further amplify severe weather impacts. Wind-driven snow can quickly obscure roadways and trails, eliminating visual references and increasing the risk of disorientation, accidents, and exposure. Wind chill can become life-threatening even during moderately cold temperatures, with frostbite possible within minutes and hypothermia remaining the leading cause of winter weather-related fatalities.318 Localized convective wind events, including microbursts and dust devils, may also occur under certain atmospheric conditions. Microbursts can produce sudden, intense downdraft winds that damage structures and vegetation and disrupt aviation operations. Dust devils are typically smaller, short-lived phenomena that can reduce visibility and create localized hazards, particularly in dry or disturbed soil conditions. Lightning, while less frequent than winter hazards, remains a critical summer severe weather concern due to its role as the primary ignition source for wildland fires. Lightning-caused fires can trigger cascading impacts, including smoke exposure, transportation disruptions, evacuations, and prolonged emergency response demands.319 Taken together, these impacts demonstrate that future severe weather events in the FNSB are most consequential when hazards interact or persist, producing cascading effects across infrastructure, transportation, public health, emergency services, and supply chains.320 Winter rain events may also contribute to secondary hazards, including infrastructure damage during spring melt, localized flooding, and increased wildlife- human interactions.321 6.5 Recurrence Probability of Future Events The probability of recurrence of severe weather events in the FNSB is high and certain. Extreme cold, heavy snow, high winds, wind chill, and ice fog occur every winter, while 318 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Severe weather impacts, winter storm hazards, wind chill guidance, and Interior Alaska event summaries. National Weather Service (NWS). Wind chill criteria, cold weather fatalities, and post-storm hazard guidance. 319 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Severe weather variability, compound hazards, and Interior Alaska climate analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC); NWS Fairbanks. Lightning impacts and wildfire ignition relationships in Interior Alaska. 320 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Severe weather impacts, winter storm hazards, wind chill guidance, and Interior Alaska event summaries. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Severe weather variability, compound hazards, and Interior Alaska climate analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 321 Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness (ACCAP), Winter Rain in Interior Alaska: Community Impacts, Effective Responses, and Policy Implications, Spring 2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-21 Page 248 of 1055 freezing rain and transition-season storms occur intermittently but with high consequence impacts. Although the precise timing, duration, and severity of individual events cannot be predicted far in advance, severe weather should be expected annually across the Borough.322 Climate observations and long-term records indicate that while average temperatures have increased, Interior Alaska continues to experience frequent extreme cold events, intense winter storms, and highly variable precipitation. This variability reinforces the likelihood of recurring severe weather hazards that stress infrastructure, transportation systems, utilities, and emergency response capacity on a regular basis.323 6.5.1 Fairbanks Climate and Weather Extremes Fairbanks, like most of mainland Alaska south of the Brooks Range, has a subarctic continental climate characterized by short, warm summers; long, cold winters; and brief transition seasons in spring and fall. Systematic climate observations have been maintained in the Fairbanks area since 1904, with continuous National Weather Service records at the Fairbanks International Airport since 1951, providing one of the longest high-latitude climate datasets in the United States.324 Despite long-term warming trends, prolonged deep cold remains a recurring feature of Interior Alaska winters. Temperatures below -40℉ continue to occur in many winters, posing persistent risks to life safety, infrastructure, and transportation. Long-term temperature records from the UAF Agricultural Experiment Farm, which extend back to 1912, show a marked increase in average annual temperature since the 1970s; however, this trend has not eliminated extreme cold events, which continue to define winter hazard conditions in the Borough.325 322 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Long-term climate observations and severe weather frequency records for Fairbanks. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks climate normals, variability, and extreme event analysis (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 323 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks climate normals, variability, and extreme event analysis (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Interior Alaska climate trends, variability, and implications for severe weather recurrence. 324 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Long-term climate observations and severe weather frequency records for Fairbanks. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks climate normals, variability, and extreme event analysis (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 325 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks climate normals, variability, and extreme event analysis (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Interior Alaska climate trends, variability, and implications for severe weather recurrence. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-22 Page 249 of 1055 Precipitation across the FNSB is highly variable both seasonally and spatially. Annual precipitation totals in upland areas of the eastern Borough are typically two to three times greater than those recorded at FIA. While no strong long-term precipitation trend is evident, recent analyses show that the five-year period beginning in 2017 was wetter than any previous five-year period in the past nine decades, increasing the potential for heavy snow events and rain-on-snow or freezing-rain impacts.326 Summer temperature extremes also demonstrate increasing variability. Although the highest daily summer temperatures show no clear long-term trend over the past 90 years, the frequency of very warm days has increased. Between 1930 and 1989, only three summers recorded 20 or more days with highs at or above 80°F. Between 1990 and 2020, six such summers were recorded, reflecting an increase in warm-season extremes that influence thunderstorm development and lightning-related hazards.327 Historic climate records also demonstrate that unusual winter conditions are not unprecedented. For example, December 1934 featured multiple days with temperatures in the 50°Fs, resulting in a temporary loss of snow cover. While rare, such events illustrate the high variability of Interior Alaska’s climate system and reinforce uncertainty in the timing and form of severe weather hazards.328 Together, these climate characteristics indicate that the FNSB will continue to experience recurring severe weather hazards, driven by a combination of extreme cold, winter storms, wind, variable precipitation, and seasonal transitions. These conditions support a high probability of severe weather impacts affecting the Borough annually, as illustrated in Figures 6-6 through 6-10.329 326 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks climate normals, variability, and extreme event analysis (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC). Five-year precipitation anomaly analysis for Interior Alaska. 327 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks climate normals, variability, and extreme event analysis (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). National Weather Service; Alaska Climate Research Center. Warm-season temperature extremes and thunderstorm climatology for Fairbanks. 328 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Long-term climate observations and severe weather frequency records for Fairbanks. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks climate normals, variability, and extreme event analysis (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 329 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Long-term climate observations and severe weather frequency records for Fairbanks. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks climate normals, variability, and extreme event analysis (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Interior Alaska climate trends, variability, and implications for severe weather recurrence. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-23 Page 250 of 1055 Figure 6-6: Annual Average Temperature – Fairbanks Area Source: Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness / University of Alaska Fairbanks. Figure 6-7: Average Monthly Temperature – Fairbanks Source: Scenarios Network for Alaska + Arctic Planning, University of Alaska Fairbanks. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-24 Page 251 of 1055 Figure 6-8: Five-Year Running Precipitation Departure – FNSB Source: Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness / University of Alaska Fairbanks. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-25 Page 252 of 1055 Figure 6-9: December 1934 Climate Data – Fairbanks Source: US National Weather Service, Fairbanks, Alaska. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-26 Page 253 of 1055 Figure 6-10: Winter Season Climate Statistics – Fairbanks (2025-2026) Source: National Weather Service, Fairbanks, Alaska Climate Research Center, UAF SNAP / ACCAP. Figures 6-6 through 6-10 illustrate long-term climate and weather variability in the Fairbanks area, including trends in temperature and precipitation, as well as notable extreme conditions. Together, these data demonstrate substantial variability in both temperature and precipitation over time, including warming trends, increased frequency of warm-season extremes, and periods of elevated precipitation. These patterns contribute to the increasing complexity of severe weather hazards in the Borough, including extreme cold events, winter storms, precipitation variability, and compound hazard conditions. These climate trends provide important context for understanding both the recurrence and severity of severe weather events in the FNSB. 6.6 Climate-Informed Risk Considerations Changing climate conditions are expected to increase the complexity and consequences of severe weather in the Borough, rather than eliminate cold-weather hazards. Observed and projected trends indicate increased weather variability, particularly during shoulder seasons, alongside continued exposure to extreme winter conditions. This variability FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-27 Page 254 of 1055 increases the likelihood of compound severe weather events that combine snow, freezing rain, wind, and subsequent extreme cold.330 Climate analyses for Interior Alaska indicate an increased frequency of freezing rain, rain-on-snow events, and wet, heavy snow, all of which pose elevated risk to infrastructure, transportation systems, and electrical distribution networks. These conditions increase the risk of tree failure, downed power lines, structural loading, and prolonged outages, particularly when events persist for multiple days.331 At the same time, life-threatening extreme cold events continue to occur, even as long-term average temperatures rise. When extreme cold follows winter storms, the combined effects can significantly increase risk to life safety, especially for residents without reliable heat, those with limited mobility, and individuals dependent on electricity-based heating systems.332 Climate-driven impacts to transportation corridors and energy systems may extend recovery timelines following severe weather events, particularly when storms coincide with other hazards or affect multiple systems simultaneously. Disruptions to power generation, fuel delivery, road access, aviation, and communications can create cascading impacts, including supply chain disruptions affecting food, fuel, and medical supplies across Interior Alaska.333 Recent events further illustrate the expanding range of temperature extremes affecting the Borough. The issuance of the first recorded heat advisory in Fairbanks underscores increasing temperature variability and highlights the need to plan for a broader spectrum of severe weather conditions across seasons. While heat is addressed separately in planning efforts, its occurrence reinforces the importance of all-hazards, climate-informed 330 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide (FP-206-21-002) and climate-informed risk guidance. Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska climate summaries and record analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). 331 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska climate summaries and record analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Alaska’s Changing Environment 2.0 (2024): Severe weather variability, rain-on-snow, and infrastructure risk. 332 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska climate summaries and record analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Extreme cold events and post-storm hazard analyses. 333 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide (FP-206-21-002) and climate-informed risk guidance. University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Alaska’s Changing Environment 2.0 (2024): Severe weather variability, rain-on-snow, and infrastructure risk. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-28 Page 255 of 1055 mitigation strategies that emphasize redundancy, continuity of operations, and preparedness for extended-duration events, as illustrated in Figure 6-11.334 Figure 6-11: Latest Dates Temperature Above 32°F – Fairbanks Area Source: National Weather Service, Fairbanks Forecast Office. Figure 6-11 illustrates the timing of late-season temperatures above freezing in the Fairbanks area. This pattern indicates increasing variability in seasonal temperature transitions, including later occurrences of above-freezing conditions, which can contribute to more frequent freeze-thaw cycles, rain-on-snow events, and other complex severe weather conditions. These shifts in seasonal temperature patterns increase the likelihood of compound hazard events and extend the period during which infrastructure and transportation systems are exposed to variable and potentially hazardous conditions. 6.7 Existing Programs and Capabilities The FNSB participates in nationally recognized preparedness initiatives that strengthen severe weather readiness, situational awareness, and emergency coordination. These programs support hazard mitigation by improving the dissemination of warnings, public 334 Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska climate summaries and record analyses (Rick Thoman, Alaska Climate Specialist). Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC); National Weather Service Fairbanks. Heat advisory issuance and temperature variability records for Fairbanks. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-29 Page 256 of 1055 preparedness, and interagency coordination before and during high-impact severe weather events.335 The Borough and the UAF are designated participants in the NWS StormReady® program, demonstrating sustained capability in weather monitoring, warning reception, public alerting, and emergency response coordination. In addition, the Borough Emergency Management and UAF participate as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Weather-Ready Nation (WRN) Ambassadors, reinforcing collaboration with the NWS, public outreach, and consistent resilience messaging related to severe weather hazards.336 Together, these programs enhance the Borough’s capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from severe weather by supporting redundant warning pathways, coordinated emergency operations, and ongoing public education focused on life-safety risks associated with extreme cold, winter storms, high winds, and other severe weather hazards.337 6.7.1 StormReady® The StormReady® program is a voluntary NWS initiative designed to help communities and universities better prepare for hazardous weather and flooding. StormReady® recognition reflects a demonstrated commitment to maintaining the infrastructure, procedures, and coordination necessary to protect life and property during severe weather events.338 To achieve and maintain StormReady® status, a community or institution must demonstrate the ability to:  Maintain a 24-hour warning point and emergency operations capability  Receive NWS warnings through multiple, redundant pathways 335 National Weather Service (NWS). StormReady® Program documentation and designation records for Fairbanks North Star Borough and University of Alaska Fairbanks. 336 National Weather Service (NWS). StormReady® Program documentation and designation records for Fairbanks North Star Borough and University of Alaska Fairbanks. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Weather-Ready Nation Ambassador initiative documentation and recognition records for Interior Alaska partners. 337 National Weather Service (NWS). StormReady® Program documentation and designation records for Fairbanks North Star Borough and University of Alaska Fairbanks. 338 National Weather Service (NWS). StormReady® Program documentation and designation records for Fairbanks North Star Borough and University of Alaska Fairbanks. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-30 Page 257 of 1055  Disseminate warnings to the public using more than one communication method  Monitor local weather and flood conditions  Conduct ongoing public preparedness education  Address hazardous weather and flooding in emergency management planning, training, and exercises The FNSB became the first borough in the State of Alaska to be recognized as a StormReady® community on August 30, 2016. The UAF became the first university in Alaska to achieve StormReady® University recognition on December 4, 2018. These designations reflect long-standing coordination between emergency management, the NWS, and institutional partners within the Borough.339 6.7.2 Weather-Ready Nation (WRN) Ambassador The NOAA WRN Ambassador initiative is a national partnership program that brings together organizations committed to increasing resilience to extreme weather, water, and climate events. WRN Ambassadors collaborated with NOAA to promote preparedness messaging, share risk information, and model best practices for organizational readiness.340 FNSB Emergency Management was recognized as a WRN Ambassador on November 28, 2016, and the UAF received WRN Ambassador recognition on December 4, 2018. By participating in this initiative, both organizations support consistent, science-based communication about severe weather risks and preparedness actions relevant to Interior Alaska.341 339 National Weather Service (NWS). StormReady® Program documentation and designation records for Fairbanks North Star Borough and University of Alaska Fairbanks. 340 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Weather-Ready Nation Ambassador initiative documentation and recognition records for Interior Alaska partners. 341 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Weather-Ready Nation Ambassador initiative documentation and recognition records for Interior Alaska partners. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 6-31 Page 258 of 1055 7. Flood Hazard Profile Flooding has been a recurring natural hazard in the FNSB, driven by snowmelt, ice jams, rainfall, and riverine processes associated with the Chena and Tanana River systems. Flood risk varies across the Borough based on proximity to waterways, topography, land use, and the presence of flood control infrastructure. The Borough benefits from major flood risk-reduction systems, including the Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project and the Tanana River Levee System, which have significantly reduced flood damage during multiple historic events. However, these systems do not eliminate flood risk, as overtopping, structural failure, limitations in interior drainage, and extreme hydrologic events remain possible. Accordingly, flooding continues to represent a significant hazard requiring ongoing planning, maintenance, and emergency preparedness. 7.1 Nature and Location Flooding in the FNSB occurs when river systems, drainage networks, or low-lying areas are unable to convey or store runoff generated by snowmelt, rainfall, ice processes, or groundwater rise. Flood risk in the Borough is strongly influenced by seasonal hydrology, river ice dynamics, flat valley topography, and the presence of major flood control infrastructure along the Chena and Tanana Rivers. The primary flood-prone areas of the Borough are associated with the Chena River, Tanana River, and Salcha River, as well as their connected floodplains, and low-relief urban and suburban areas with limited drainage capacity. Flooding may occur during spring breakup, summer rainfall events, or winter conditions, depending on hydrologic and climatic drivers. 7.1.1 Riverine Flooding (Snowmelt and Rainfall) Riverine flooding results from spring snowmelt and heavy summer rainfall, which increases runoff and raises river stages. In Interior Alaska, snowmelt flooding typically occurs from late April through May, particularly when rapid warming follows a winter with an above-average snowpack or when the ground remains frozen, limiting infiltration. Rainfall-driven flooding most often occurs in late summer and early fall, when prolonged or intense precipitation exceeds channel capacity. August is typically the wettest month in Fairbanks, increasing late-season flood potential. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-1 Page 259 of 1055 7.1.2 Ice Jam Flooding Ice jam flooding is a significant and high-risk flood mechanism in the FNSB. During spring breakup, river ice may accumulate at natural constrictions, bends, bridge crossings, or channel irregularities, forming temporary dams that cause rapid rises in upstream water levels. Ice jam flooding can occur with little warning, inundating adjacent areas within minutes. Sudden ice-jam release can also cause downstream flooding. Ice jam events are often exacerbated when breakup coincides with snowmelt or rainfall. 7.1.3 Pluvial (Ponding) Flooding Pluvial flooding occurs when rainfall or snowmelt accumulates in flat or poorly drained areas where runoff cannot be conveyed efficiently. This type of flooding is common in portions of the Tanana Valley floor, developed areas with limited stormwater infrastructure, and locations with permafrost-affected soils. Floodwaters may persist until they infiltrate, evaporate, or are mechanically drained. 7.1.4 Winter and Aufeis Flooding Winter flooding, including aufeis formation, occurs when groundwater or spring-fed streams continue to discharge beneath ice-covered channels. When flow is obstructed by ice, water spreads laterally and freezes in layers, creating ice accumulations that can flood roads, properties, and infrastructure. This type of flooding is least predictable and is most notably observed in areas such as the Salcha region. 7.1.5 Streambank Erosion and Channel Migration Flooding in the FNSB is closely linked to streambank erosion and channel migration, particularly along the Tanana and Chena Rivers. High-flow events can erode banks, deposit sediment, and alter channel alignment over time. While these processes are natural, development within floodplains and migration corridors increases the risk of property loss and infrastructure damage. Channel migration can occur gradually or rapidly during flood events, underscoring the importance of land-use planning and development setbacks in flood-prone areas. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 illustrate the spatial distribution of flood hazard areas within the Borough, including both borough-wide and urban-scale flood-risk conditions, based on current mapping and locally maintained GIS datasets. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-2 Page 260 of 1055 Figure 7-1: Map of Flood Hazard Extent - Borough Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough Flood Hazard Map FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-3 Page 261 of 1055 Figure 7-2: Map of Flood Hazard Extent - Urban Core Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough Flood Hazard Map Figures 7-1 and 7-2 demonstrate that flood hazards are concentrated along major river systems, including the Tanana and Chena Rivers, as well as in low-lying and developed areas within the urban core. These patterns indicate that both rural and urban areas are exposed to flooding risks, with increased potential for impacts to infrastructure, development, and transportation systems where floodplains overlap with populated areas and critical facilities. The alignment of development within these flood-prone areas also increases the potential for streambank erosion and channel migration to directly affect structures and infrastructure over time. 7.2 Historical Occurrence Flooding has influenced settlement patterns, infrastructure investment, and emergency management planning in the FNSB for more than a century. Early development occurred directly within river floodplains and ice-affected channels, resulting in repeated flood FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-4 Page 262 of 1055 damage driven by ice jams, snowmelt, and rainfall prior to the construction of major flood control infrastructure.342 7.2.1 Early Flooding and Ice Jam Events (1905–1947) Some of the earliest documented flood events in Fairbanks were caused by ice jams and streambank erosion along the Chena River. In 1905, an ice dam formed during spring breakup when debris from a collapsed upstream bridge lodged against a downtown bridge, blocking the flow of ice and causing flooding along First Avenue. Streambank erosion removed approximately 50 feet of land in places, and the bridge was ultimately dynamited to release floodwaters.343 In 1911, an ice jam on the Chena River forced thick ice and debris into developed areas, destroying buildings in the Garden Island subdivision and causing an estimated $50,000 in damage. These early events demonstrated the rapid onset and destructive potential of ice-related flooding in the Interior.344 Rainfall-driven flooding also occurred during this period. In 1930, heavy rainfall flooded downtown Fairbanks along First Avenue west to Cowles Street, reinforcing the Borough’s exposure to open-water flooding during wet periods.345 7.2.2 Major Floods and Early River Engineering (1938–1966) Following years of recurring floods, including the significant flood of 1937, the Moose Creek Dike was constructed between 1938 and 1941 as the first major river re-engineering project in the Fairbanks area. The dike was designed to prevent floodwater from a Tanana River slough from entering the Chena River and inundating downtown Fairbanks. Construction of the dike reduced Chena River flows through the city by approximately 75 percent and relocated the river’s confluence to its present-day location south of FIA.346 342 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Historical flood records and emergency management documentation. 343 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Historical flood records and emergency management documentation. National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood event summaries, ice jam records, and hydrologic observations. 344 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Historical flood records and emergency management documentation. National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood event summaries, ice jam records, and hydrologic observations. 345 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Historical flood records and emergency management documentation. 346 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project history and operational summaries. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-5 Page 263 of 1055 Despite these early mitigation efforts, severe flooding continued. In 1948, Fairbanks experienced the second-largest flood of record, inundating approximately 30 percent of the city. The most catastrophic flood in the community’s history occurred in August 1967, when prolonged and near-continuous rainfall caused widespread inundation. Approximately 95 percent of Fairbanks was flooded for several days, resulting in more than $170 million in damage, nearly 6,000 damaged homes, extensive evacuations, and eight fatalities. This event remains the historical flood of record for the Borough.347 7.2.3 Construction of the Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project (1968–1979) In response to the 1967 flood and similar events nationwide, Congress authorized the Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project under the Flood Control Act of 1968. Constructed between 1973 and 1979, the project includes Moose Creek Dam, a floodway, and a levee- and-groin system along the Tanana River south of Fairbanks.348 When the Chena River approaches flood stage, gates at Moose Creek Dam are lowered to divert floodwaters south through the floodway and into the Tanana River, effectively bypassing downtown Fairbanks. Since becoming operational, the project has significantly reduced flood damage in central Fairbanks; however, system operation can produce secondary impacts, including elevated groundwater levels downstream and flooding in other areas of the Borough.349 7.2.4 Post-Project Flood Events (1992–Present) Flooding has continued to occur in the FNSB since completion of the flood control project, though impacts have generally been reduced in downtown Fairbanks. In May 1992, rainfall on a heavy snowpack caused a major runoff event. Moose Creek Dam was operated for 17 days, impounding water up to 23 feet deep over more than 7,200 acres 347 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Historical flood records and emergency management documentation. National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood event summaries, ice jam records, and hydrologic observations. 348 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project history and operational summaries. 349 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project history and operational summaries. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-6 Page 264 of 1055 of the floodway. While the project functioned as designed, elevated groundwater levels damaged more than 90 homes in the North Pole area.350 Significant flooding occurred again in April–May 2002, when heavy rainfall on snowpack caused washouts along the Steese Highway near the Chatanika River. That spring, breakup-related flooding and glacial runoff also affected the community of Salcha, resulting in a Major Disaster Declaration (DR-1423-AK). Ice jam flooding persisted through the winter of 2002–2003, causing prolonged impacts in Salcha and nearby areas.351 In September 2008, intense rainfall caused record-high water levels across the Tanana Valley Drainage, flooding areas including Salcha, Rosie Creek, Perkins Landing, and Lower Chena Pump Road. Approximately 300 homes were damaged, and the event resulted in a Presidential Disaster Declaration (DR-1796-AK). Ice jam flooding in 2009 again impacted Salcha, prompting another disaster declaration (DR-1843-AK).352 More recent events illustrate the continuing flood hazard across the Borough. Ice jam flooding along the Tanana River affected Salcha in 2011 and 2013, damaging properties and infrastructure. Rainfall-driven flooding occurred in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, and 2019, with multiple closures of Moose Creek Dam to manage Chena River flows. In 2020, a dynamic breakup of the Chena River caused ice jam flooding in downtown Fairbanks and along Chena Hot Springs Road, followed by rapid snowmelt that brought the Chena, Salcha, and Chatanika Rivers to flood stage. The flood control project was operated multiple times in spring 2020 to prevent flooding in downtown.353 These events demonstrate that while flood control infrastructure has significantly reduced flood damages in central Fairbanks, flooding remains a recurring hazard across the 350 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project history and operational summaries. Fairbanks North Star Borough; City of North Pole. Post-1992 groundwater flooding impact documentation. 351 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood event summaries, ice jam records, and hydrologic observations. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Disaster Declarations DR-1423-AK, DR-1796-AK, and DR-1843-AK. 352 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood event summaries, ice jam records, and hydrologic observations. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Disaster Declarations DR-1423-AK, DR-1796-AK, and DR-1843-AK. 353 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood event summaries, ice jam records, and hydrologic observations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project history and operational summaries. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-7 Page 265 of 1055 Borough, particularly from ice jams, groundwater rise, and flooding in communities outside the primary protection areas as illustrated in Figure 7-3.354 Figure 7-3: Ice Jam on the Chena River near Front Street, Downtown Fairbanks (April 23, 2020) Source: National Weather Service Fairbanks; Pro Music Webcam Figure 7-3 illustrates ice jam flooding conditions along the Chena River in downtown Fairbanks during the 2020 breakup event. This image demonstrates how ice can rapidly obstruct river flow, leading to localized flooding in developed areas, including locations otherwise protected by flood control infrastructure. These conditions highlight the limitations of structural flood control measures in addressing ice jam flooding and groundwater-related impacts across the Borough. 7.3 Extent Extent describes the severity or magnitude of a hazard, including the intensity, geographic scale, and potential level of impact on the planning area. The extent of floods within the FNSB varies based on location, seasonal conditions, and specific event characteristics. Extent of flooding within the planning area is influenced by riverine flooding along the Chena and Tanana Rivers, ice jam events, and localized drainage limitations. Flood extent may range from nuisance flooding affecting roads and low-lying areas to more severe 354 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Historical flood records and emergency management documentation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project history and operational summaries. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-8 Page 266 of 1055 events impacting structures, infrastructure, and critical facilities within mapped floodplains. Flood depth, duration, and velocity vary by location and event conditions. In the FNSB, flood extent may include water depths ranging from minor roadway inundation of less than one foot to several feet of flooding affecting structures and infrastructure within flood-prone areas. Major historical events, including the 1967 flood, demonstrated the potential for widespread inundation across a large portion of the developed area, while more recent flood events have resulted in localized but significant impacts on communities along the Tanana, Chena, and Salcha River systems. Ice jam flooding can produce rapid, high-depth flooding with little warning, while prolonged high- water conditions may result in multi-day or multi-week inundation, groundwater rise, and extended impacts to structures, utilities, and transportation systems across the Borough. Flood extent within the Borough is influenced by the operation and limitations of flood control infrastructure, including Moose Creek Dam and associated levee systems, which reduce but do not eliminate flood risk and may contribute to secondary impacts such as groundwater rise and localized flooding outside primary protection areas. Extent is further illustrated through hazard mapping and exposure analysis presented in Chapter 4. 7.4 Possible Impacts from Future Events Future flood events in the FNSB have the potential to cause significant physical damage, economic disruption, and life-safety impacts, particularly when flooding occurs outside primary protection areas or overwhelms local drainage and groundwater systems. Flood impacts may result from water inundation, high-velocity flows, debris accumulation, ice processes, and elevated groundwater levels, depending on flood type and location.355 Flooding can damage structures through direct inundation, debris impacts, and erosion or scouring of roadways, foundations, footings, streambanks, and bridge supports. Even when river flows are controlled or diverted by flood control infrastructure, flood events may still raise the groundwater table, resulting in basement flooding, utilidor inundation, and impacts to septic systems and wells, particularly in low-lying or poorly drained areas.356 355 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood impacts, ice jam behavior, erosion, and hydrologic hazard summaries for Interior Alaska. 356 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood impacts, ice jam behavior, erosion, and hydrologic hazard summaries for Interior Alaska. Fairbanks North Star Borough Emergency Management; Alaska DHS&EM. Flood response, infrastructure impacts, and economic disruption documentation. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-9 Page 267 of 1055 Floodwater may also mobilize hazardous materials, petroleum products, and sewage if storage facilities, fuel tanks, or wastewater systems are inundated. These releases can pose risks to public health, contaminate soil and surface waters, and complicate cleanup and recovery efforts. Navigation and transportation can be affected by rising river levels, reducing clearance under bridges and damaging river crossings, docks, and access roads.357 The economic consequences of flooding can be substantial. Utility services, businesses, communications facilities, and government operations may experience prolonged disruption due to damaged infrastructure, restricted access, or loss of critical services. Because the FNSB serves as a regional transportation and service hub for Interior Alaska, flooding that compromises highways, rail lines, or airport access can affect communities well beyond the Borough by disrupting supply chains, freight movement, and access to healthcare and essential goods.358 Flood control infrastructure, including Moose Creek Dam and the Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project, has significantly reduced flood damages within much of urban Fairbanks by diverting floodwaters away from the city during high-flow events. However, these systems are designed for flood control rather than flood prevention, and flooding can still occur within the broader, more complex floodplain associated with the Tanana River, due to ice jams, extreme hydrologic events, groundwater rise, or flooding in areas outside protected zones.359 As future flood events occur, the most severe impacts are expected where multiple factors interact, such as ice jams combined with snowmelt or rainfall, prolonged high-water levels, or flooding coinciding with power outages or transportation disruptions. These 357 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood impacts, ice jam behavior, erosion, and hydrologic hazard summaries for Interior Alaska. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project operational summaries and flood impact analyses. 358 Fairbanks North Star Borough Emergency Management; Alaska DHS&EM. Flood response, infrastructure impacts, and economic disruption documentation. University of Alaska Fairbanks; Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC). Regional transportation, supply chain, and infrastructure vulnerability to flooding in Interior Alaska. 359 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project operational summaries and flood impact analyses. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood hazard guidance, residual risk behind flood control infrastructure, and NFIP risk communication materials. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-10 Page 268 of 1055 compound conditions can extend recovery timelines, strain emergency response capabilities, and increase long-term economic and social impacts across the Borough.360 7.5 Recurrence Probability of Future Events The recurrence probability of flooding within the FNSB remains moderate to high, depending on location, flood mechanism, and the presence or absence of flood control infrastructure. While the likelihood of large-scale riverine flooding affecting much of the City of Fairbanks has been significantly reduced through operation of Moose Creek Dam and the Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project, flood events continue to occur regularly in communities outside primary protection areas, particularly along the Tanana River and its tributaries.361 Communities such as Salcha, along with other rural neighborhoods within the Tanana River floodplain, experience recurring flood risk from ice jams, snowmelt, rainfall, and winter flooding, with some areas affected during multiple years or seasons. Ice jam formation along the Tanana River and its tributaries remains a persistent and difficult-to-predict hazard, resulting in repeated flooding in Salcha, Rosie Creek, and Chatanika areas.362 In portions of the Borough east of Fort Wainwright, new low-density residential development has expanded into areas susceptible to elevated groundwater levels associated with impoundment of the Chena River during flood control operations at Moose Creek Dam. Groundwater flooding has also been identified as a principal flood mechanism in South Fairbanks for areas landward of the Tanana River Levee System. Although the levee has been formally accredited by FEMA, groundwater seepage beneath the levee 360 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood impacts, ice jam behavior, erosion, and hydrologic hazard summaries for Interior Alaska. University of Alaska Fairbanks; Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC). Regional transportation, supply chain, and infrastructure vulnerability to flooding in Interior Alaska. 361 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood recurrence, ice jam behavior, and hydrologic variability for Interior Alaska. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); Fairbanks North Star Borough. Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project operations and groundwater impact documentation. 362 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood recurrence, ice jam behavior, and hydrologic variability for Interior Alaska. Alaska Railroad Corporation; Alaska DHS&EM. Salcha levee construction and Tanana River bridge ice-mitigation project documentation. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-11 Page 269 of 1055 can still occur during periods of high Tanana River stage, contributing to recurring flood impacts even in mapped Zone X areas.363 Flood recurrence in the Borough is further influenced by streambank erosion and channel migration along the Tanana and Chena Rivers. While these processes are natural components of river systems, they increase flood risk where development has occurred near channel margins or within migration corridors. Ongoing erosion has been observed along both river systems, though not all migration zones have been formally mapped. Development of a Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) overlay would improve risk awareness by identifying areas subject to lateral channel movement and recurring flood-related impacts.364 Flood control measures have been implemented in some high-risk areas to reduce the recurrence of impacts. In 2017, the ARRC constructed a levee along the Tanana River in Salcha and replaced the Tanana River bridge with piers designed to reduce ice accumulation and promote breakup. While these measures reduce local risk, they do not eliminate the potential for future flooding during extreme hydrologic or ice conditions.365 Climate analyses for Interior Alaska indicate high interannual variability in precipitation, with recent periods exhibiting above-average rainfall. Increases in heavy precipitation events may elevate flood recurrence potential, particularly where rainfall coincides with snowmelt, frozen ground, or ice processes. While the exact timing and location of future flood events cannot be predicted, flooding should be expected to recur periodically across the Borough, especially in areas not fully protected by existing flood control infrastructure, as illustrated in Figure 7-4.366 363 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); Fairbanks North Star Borough. Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project operations and groundwater impact documentation. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Tanana River Levee System accreditation under 44 CFR §65.10 and residual flood risk guidance. 364 National Weather Service (NWS), Fairbanks Forecast Office. Flood recurrence, ice jam behavior, and hydrologic variability for Interior Alaska. Fairbanks North Star Borough; Alaska Department of Natural Resources. River erosion, channel migration observations, and floodplain management considerations. 365 Alaska Railroad Corporation; Alaska DHS&EM. Salcha levee construction and Tanana River bridge ice-mitigation project documentation. 366 University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / Alaska Climate Research Center (ACRC). Precipitation variability and flood-risk implications for Interior Alaska. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-12 Page 270 of 1055 Figure 7-4: Average Monthly Precipitation for Fairbanks, Alaska Source: Scenarios Network for Alaska + Arctic Planning, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Figure 7-4 illustrates average monthly precipitation patterns in the Fairbanks area. This pattern indicates seasonal variability in precipitation, with periods of increased precipitation contributing to elevated flood potential, particularly when combined with snowmelt, frozen ground conditions, or ice processes. These seasonal precipitation patterns contribute to compound flood conditions when rainfall occurs concurrently with snowmelt, frozen ground, or ice jam processes, increasing both the likelihood and severity of flood events. 7.6 NFIP Participation The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to reduce flood losses through a combination of flood insurance availability, floodplain management standards, and hazard mapping. Participation in the NFIP enables property owners to obtain federally backed flood insurance while requiring FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-13 Page 271 of 1055 participating communities to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations designed to reduce future flood damages.367 The FNSB administers the NFIP for the entire Borough, including the City of Fairbanks and the City of North Pole. The Borough was one of the earliest communities nationwide to join the NFIP, entering the program in 1969. Continued participation in the NFIP is critical for maintaining eligibility for flood insurance, certain federal disaster assistance programs, and hazard mitigation funding.368 As of the most recent available NFIP policy and claims data, the FNSB had 657 active flood insurance policies insuring approximately $169 million in property value. Since 1978, a total of 227 flood insurance claims have been filed within the Borough, with cumulative paid losses exceeding $2 million, representing the highest NFIP claim totals statewide. These data reflect both the Borough’s exposure to flood hazards and the long-term value of NFIP participation in facilitating recovery following flood events.369 Flood hazard identification within the Borough is supported by Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which delineate SFHAs and establish regulatory floodplain boundaries. Many FNSB FIRMs were comprehensively revised in January 1992 following the completion of the Moose Creek Flood Control Project, which introduced a regulatory floodway for significant portions of the Chena River through urban Fairbanks. Subsequent updates, including FEMA Risk MAP efforts and recent levee accreditation actions, continue to refine the representation of flood hazards across the Borough.370 Flood hazard mapping within the Borough has been updated incrementally over time to reflect changes in flood risk, infrastructure, and regulatory requirements. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (dFIRMs) for portions of the Borough became effective in 2014 following FEMA Map Modernization and Risk MAP efforts, including updates to South Fairbanks. Additional map revisions were adopted in 2020 to address localized flood hazards and updated engineering analyses. These prior updates form the regulatory 367 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). National Flood Insurance Program Overview and National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. 368 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Floodplain management program records and NFIP participation documentation. 369 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Floodplain management program records and NFIP participation documentation. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). NFIP Policy and Claims Reports; Repetitive Loss Property listings for Alaska. 370 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), regulatory floodway guidance, and Risk MAP documentation for FNSB. FEMA Region 10; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Tanana River Levee System accreditation and recent flood study/map update documentation. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-14 Page 272 of 1055 baseline under Title 15, upon which the current Tanana River and Zone A Physical Map Revision (PMR) flood study builds.371 Building on these prior map updates, FEMA’s Tanana River and Zone A PMR Flood Study had progressed through the Preliminary and appeal phases, with no appeals received, and was advancing toward final FIRM issuance and adoption. Concurrently, flood-control infrastructure improvements and levee-related documentation for the Moose Creek Dam and Tanana River systems were being finalized in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the FNSB, and FEMA. Final flood hazard mapping and regulatory requirements will take effect following issuance of the Letter of Final Determination (LFD) and completion of the required map adoption process.372 While the Moose Creek Flood Control Project reduces flood risk along the Chena River, many developed areas within the Borough remain mapped as approximate Zone A floodplains, particularly outside primary protection areas. These areas are subject to continued flood risk and rely on floodplain management standards, permitting, and public awareness to reduce future losses. Recent and ongoing flood studies and map updates reflect changes in development patterns, hydrology, and flood control infrastructure, underscoring the dynamic nature of flood risk within the FNSB.373 7.6.1 Repetitive Loss Properties According to the most recent NFIP Repetitive Loss (RL) property inventory, there are 25 repetitive loss properties within the FNSB. A repetitive loss property is defined as a structure that has experienced two or more flood insurance claim payments exceeding $1,000 within any rolling ten-year period. These properties represent a disproportionate share of NFIP claims and losses nationwide.374 Of the identified repetitive loss properties in the Borough, seven have been mitigated through acquisition, elevation, or other mitigation actions. Several of these properties were acquired by the FNSB using funding from the HMGP and the NRCS, with structures 371 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), regulatory floodway guidance, and Risk MAP documentation for FNSB. Fairbanks North Star Borough. Floodplain Management Ordinance (Title 15) adoption records and FEMA DFIRM effective dates (2014, 2020). 372 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); STARR II. Tanana River and Zone A Physical Map Revision (PMR) Flood Study Quarterly Reports (2025–2026). 373 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), regulatory floodway guidance, and Risk MAP documentation for FNSB. FEMA Region 10; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Tanana River Levee System accreditation and recent flood study/map update documentation. 374 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). NFIP Policy and Claims Reports; Repetitive Loss Property listings for Alaska. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-15 Page 273 of 1055 removed and the parcels converted to open space. Updated documentation has been submitted to the Insurance Services Office to reflect the mitigated status of these properties.375 The remaining repetitive loss properties include residential structures, properties affected by infrastructure projects, and locations subject to persistent flood mechanisms such as groundwater rise or ice jam flooding. Continued mitigation of repetitive loss properties remains an important strategy for reducing long-term flood damages and minimizing strain on the National Flood Insurance Fund.376 7.6.2 Floodplain Management Floodplain management within the FNSB is administered through the Borough’s Floodplain Administrator, whose responsibilities include maintaining NFIP compliance, reviewing development proposals within flood hazard areas, issuing permits, and enforcing floodplain management regulations. These activities are conducted under Title 15 of the FNSB Code, which establishes standards for development within SFHAs based on NFIP requirements.377 In addition to regulatory enforcement, floodplain management efforts support public education and risk awareness, helping residents and property owners understand flood hazards, insurance requirements, and mitigation options. Through continued NFIP participation, updated flood mapping, and coordination with state and federal partners, the FNSB seeks to reduce flood risk while supporting resilient development across the Borough.378 7.6.3 High Hazard Potential Dams and Flood Control Structures High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPDs) are defined by the potential consequences of failure, in which failure or misoperation would likely result in loss of life and significant 375 Fairbanks North Star Borough; Alaska DHS&EM. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and NRCS-funded flood mitigation project records. 376 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). NFIP Policy and Claims Reports; Repetitive Loss Property listings for Alaska. Fairbanks North Star Borough; Alaska DHS&EM. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and NRCS-funded flood mitigation project records. 377 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Floodplain management program records and NFIP participation documentation. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), regulatory floodway guidance, and Risk MAP documentation for FNSB. 378 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Floodplain management program records and NFIP participation documentation. FEMA Region 10; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Tanana River Levee System accreditation and recent flood study/map update documentation. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-16 Page 274 of 1055 property damage. Within the FNSB, key water control and dam-related infrastructure includes the Chena River Flood Control Project (including Moose Creek Dam and flood control structures) operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Fort Knox Mine tailings storage facility, which is regulated by the State of Alaska and operated by Kinross Fort Knox. The planning team coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Chena River Flood Control Project, including the operation of the Moose Creek Dam and associated levee and flood-control structures. The planning team also coordinated with Fort Knox Mine representatives regarding the tailings storage facility. Information from these entities, including operational considerations, hazard potential, and flood risk context, was incorporated into the hazard mitigation planning process. Available information from USACE and the Fort Knox Mine, as well as relevant state regulatory information, was reviewed and considered in developing the flood hazard profile and risk assessment. 7.7 Long-Term Mitigation Projects Long-term flood mitigation within the FNSB relies on a combination of structural flood- control infrastructure, regulatory floodplain management, public outreach, and continual improvement of flood-hazard mapping and modeling. These measures collectively reduce flood damages, guide development away from high-risk areas, and support informed decision-making for future growth.379 7.7.1 Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project The Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project is the cornerstone of flood mitigation for the Cities of Fairbanks and North Pole, Fort Wainwright Army Base, and Fairbanks International Airport. Authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of August 13, 1968, the project was constructed between 1973 and 1979 and consists of three primary components: Moose Creek Dam and floodway, the Tanana River levee system, and a network of interior drainage channels.380 Moose Creek Dam and the associated floodway are designed to limit Chena River flows to approximately 12,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) through downtown Fairbanks during high-flow events. When river stages approach flood levels, the dam's gates are lowered to divert excess flow south through a seven-mile floodway to the Tanana River. The 379 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Flood mitigation planning documents and emergency management records. 380 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project design, construction, and operational documentation. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-17 Page 275 of 1055 floodway conveys diverted water beneath the Richardson Highway and Alaska Railroad bridges and over a sill structure into the Tanana River, which has substantially greater flow capacity.381 The Tanana River levee system, extending approximately 22 miles downstream from the floodway intersection to the mouth of the Chena River, provides flood risk reduction for the urban areas of Fairbanks and Fort Wainwright. In addition, a system of interior drainage and seepage-collector channels intercepts groundwater and seepage that percolate beneath the dam and levees, reducing interior flooding during prolonged high-water events. While the project has significantly reduced flood damage in protected areas, it is designed for flood control rather than prevention, and flooding can still occur outside the protection footprint or through mechanisms such as groundwater rise and ice jams.382 7.7.2 Floodplain Regulations (Title 15) Regulatory floodplain management is a critical long-term mitigation tool. To maintain eligibility in the NFIP, the FNSB has adopted and enforces Title 15, the Borough’s floodplain management regulations. Title 15 establishes minimum development standards within SFHAs, including elevation, construction, and permitting requirements consistent with FEMA regulations. The ordinance was comprehensively revised in April 2010 to align with updated FEMA standards and to strengthen permitting, enforcement, and compliance processes.383 7.7.3 Public Outreach and Risk Awareness The Borough supports long-term flood mitigation through public outreach and education to increase flood hazard awareness among residents, property owners, and developers. Outreach activities include participation in the annual Interior Alaska Builders Association (IABA) trade show, direct communication with property owners located within or partially within SFHAs, and reminders regarding floodplain permitting requirements for new and 381 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project design, construction, and operational documentation. 382 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project design, construction, and operational documentation. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood control infrastructure residual risk and NFIP guidance. 383 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Floodplain Management Ordinance (Title 15) and public outreach program records. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-18 Page 276 of 1055 existing development. These efforts support informed decision-making and compliance with floodplain regulations, reducing future flood losses.384 7.7.4 Flood Mapping, Modeling, and Data Improvements Ongoing improvements to flood hazard mapping and modeling support long-term mitigation planning across the Borough. The FNSB maintains a robust enterprise GIS containing floodplain, topographic, and land-use data. dFIRMs became effective in 2014, completing the Map Modernization re-study initiated in 2007. Subsequent mapping and modeling efforts continue under FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) program.385 Updated Hydrological Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) hydraulic models for the Chena River and groundwater models for the Moose Creek Dam area have been developed and refined by the ACOE. In addition, the NRCS has developed a new hydraulic model for the Chena Slough (formerly Chena-Badger Slough), which can be integrated with high-resolution light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data to improve flood risk assessment. The Borough acquired updated LiDAR coverage for urban and frequently flooded areas in 2023, providing a high-accuracy foundation for future floodplain mapping and mitigation planning.386 Together, these long-term mitigation projects and programs form an integrated approach to flood risk reduction in the FNSB, combining engineered controls, regulatory oversight, public engagement, and data-driven planning to reduce vulnerability while acknowledging residual flood risk.387 7.8 Recent Letter of Map Revisions (LOMR) and Flood Studies Several targeted Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs) and flood studies have been completed within the FNSB to refine flood hazard mapping and reflect the effects of flood mitigation infrastructure. 384 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Floodplain Management Ordinance (Title 15) and public outreach program records. 385 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), DFIRM effective dates, and Risk MAP documentation for FNSB. 386 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project design, construction, and operational documentation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Hydraulic and groundwater modeling updates and LiDAR-supported flood studies. 387 Fairbanks North Star Borough. Flood mitigation planning documents and emergency management records. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-19 Page 277 of 1055 A LOMR for the Alaska Railroad Extension Phase I project evaluated the flood risk-reduction benefits associated with the construction of a new bridge and levee along the Tanana River. As a result of this action, approximately 124 properties were removed from the SFHA, reflecting reduced flood exposure due to engineered improvements.388 The Chena Slough Flood Study was completed in 2016, with preliminary flood hazard maps released by FEMA in 2019 and formally adopted by the FNSB in 2020. This study refined floodplain delineations along the Chena Slough (formerly Chena-Badger Slough), resulting in the removal of over 100 properties and approximately 479 structures from the SFHA.389 The Tanana River and Zone A PMR Flood Study represents the most comprehensive recent flood mapping effort within the Borough. Preliminary FIRMs and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) products were released in December 2024, followed by a statutory 90-day appeal period that concluded in December 2025 with no appeals received. As of plan development, the study was advancing through the Post-Preliminary phase, with final map issuance pending completion of levee accreditation documentation and issuance of the LFD. Upon adoption, these maps will update flood hazard delineations along the Tanana River and in previously unmapped or Approximate Zone A areas, improving the accuracy of flood risk identification across the Borough.390 388 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Letter of Map Revision for Alaska Railroad Extension Phase I project. 389 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Fairbanks North Star Borough. Chena Slough Flood Study and DFIRM adoption records (2019–2020). 390 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); STARR II. Tanana River and Zone A Physical Map Revision (PMR) Flood Study Quarterly Reports (2024–2026). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 7-20 Page 278 of 1055 8. Seismic Event Hazard Profile Earthquakes represent a significant natural hazard in the FNSB due to the region’s active tectonic setting and history of seismic activity. Seismic events can produce widespread impacts to life safety, critical infrastructure, and essential services through ground shaking, surface deformation, and secondary hazards such as liquefaction and ground failure. Seismic risk in the Borough is influenced by regional fault systems, local geologic conditions, and the distribution of population and critical infrastructure. Because many earthquakes in Interior Alaska originate from both mapped faults and distributed crustal deformation, strong ground shaking can occur across broad areas. This chapter describes the nature and location of seismic hazards affecting the FNSB, along with historical occurrences and the characteristics of seismic events that influence potential impacts. This information provides the basis for understanding seismic risk and supporting the development of mitigation strategies presented later in the plan. 8.1 Nature and Location The FNSB is located within one of the most seismically active regions in the world. Alaska accounts for approximately 11 percent of the world’s recorded earthquakes, and three of the six largest earthquakes ever recorded globally occurred within the state. Seismic monitoring and analysis for Alaska are conducted by the AEIC, a partnership among UAF, the USGS, and NOAA.391 Seismic activity in Interior Alaska is driven by the collision and interaction of tectonic plates and crustal blocks. The Pacific Plate is moving northwestward beneath southern Alaska, carrying the Yakutat Terrane, a buoyant block of crust that is colliding with and deforming the North American Plate. This collision produces intense crustal compression that extends far inland, generating earthquakes not only along plate boundaries but also across Interior Alaska, including the FNSB.392 Earthquakes affecting the Borough may originate from regional fault systems, including the Denali Fault, as well as from distributed crustal deformation within the Interior. 391 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Alaska seismicity statistics and monitoring overview. 392 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Alaska seismicity statistics and monitoring overview. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); AEIC. Tectonic setting of Alaska and Interior Alaska crustal deformation. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-1 Page 279 of 1055 Because many Interior Alaska earthquakes occur at relatively shallow depths, they can produce strong ground shaking over wide areas, even when the epicenter is some distance from population centers.393 The primary hazards associated with earthquakes in the FNSB include ground shaking, surface faulting, ground settlement and liquefaction, and slope failures such as landslides or rock avalanches. The severity of earthquake impacts depends on multiple factors, including earthquake magnitude, distance from the rupture, duration of shaking, local soil conditions, groundwater presence, and building design and construction practices. Soft, unconsolidated, or saturated soils can amplify shaking and increase the likelihood of liquefaction and ground failure.394 Ground shaking during a large earthquake may last tens of seconds, and longer durations generally increase the potential for structural damage. Buildings may experience both horizontal and vertical motions, underscoring the importance of seismic-resistant design standards. In Interior Alaska, seismic risk is compounded by cold-region construction challenges, aging infrastructure, and the presence of critical lifelines, including power, fuel, water, and transportation systems, that may be vulnerable to ground deformation.395 Earthquake magnitude is measured using the moment magnitude scale, which provides a consistent estimate of the energy released by an earthquake based on fault rupture characteristics. Earthquake impacts at the surface are commonly described using the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale, which characterizes shaking intensity and observed damage. Table 8-1 compares earthquake magnitude and intensity relationships relevant to potential impacts in the Borough.396 393 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); AEIC. Tectonic setting of Alaska and Interior Alaska crustal deformation. 394 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); AEIC. Tectonic setting of Alaska and Interior Alaska crustal deformation Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); USGS. Earthquake ground shaking, soil amplification, liquefaction, and building response guidance. 395 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); USGS. Earthquake ground shaking, soil amplification, liquefaction, and building response guidance. 396 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Alaska seismicity statistics and monitoring overview. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-2 Page 280 of 1055 Table 8-1: Earthquake Intensity Equivalent Equivalent Earthquake Energy in Mercalli Energy in Human Observations Magnitude Hiroshima‐Size Intensity Weight of TNT Atomic Bombs Feels like vibration from a 4 15 tons 1/1000 II‐III nearby truck Small objects are upset, 5 477 tons 3/100 IV‐V sleepers awaken Difficult to stand, damage 6 15,095 tons 1 VI‐VII to masonry Widespread panic, some 7 477,335 tons 32 VII‐VIII walls fall Wholesale destruction, 8 15,094,673 tons 1006 IX‐XI large landslides Total damage, waves seen 9 477,335,482 tons 31,822 XI‐XII of ground surface Source: Alaska Earthquake Information Center. As shown in Table 8-1, increases in earthquake magnitude correspond to exponential increases in energy release and potential damage intensity. For the FNSB, even moderate to large earthquakes (magnitude 6 to 7) have the potential to cause significant structural damage, infrastructure disruption, and life safety impacts, particularly in areas with vulnerable building types or unfavorable soil conditions. These relationships highlight the importance of considering both magnitude and local site conditions when evaluating potential earthquake impacts in the Borough. Seismic hazard across the FNSB varies spatially based on regional tectonics and distance from major fault systems. According to the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model, much of the Borough is subject to MMI levels ranging from VI to VIII, indicating the potential for strong to severe shaking during large regional earthquakes. Higher shaking intensities are possible depending on earthquake magnitude, rupturing location, and local soil conditions. Figures 8-1 and 8-2 illustrate the spatial distribution of seismic hazard intensity FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-3 Page 281 of 1055 across the Borough and show the relationship between projected ground shaking and the location of population and built structures..397 Figure 8-1: Map of Seismic Hazard Intensity – FNSB (Modified Mercalli Intensity) Source: 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (USGS); Alaska Earthquake Information Center. 397 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model; Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-4 Page 282 of 1055 Figure 8-2: Map of Seismic Hazard Intensity with Population and Structure Overlay - FNSB Source: 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (USGS); Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS. Figures 8-1 and 8-2 demonstrate that areas throughout the Borough are subject to moderate-to-strong seismic shaking, with many developed areas and critical infrastructure located within zones of higher intensity. These patterns indicate that seismic risk in the FNSB is not limited to isolated locations but is broadly distributed, with the potential for widespread impacts to population centers, infrastructure systems, and critical facilities during a major earthquake event. The overlap of higher seismic hazard areas with population and infrastructure underscores the importance of seismic-resistant design, infrastructure resilience, and emergency preparedness across the Borough. 8.2 Historical Occurrence Historical earthquake activity affecting the FNSB is comparable to the Alaska statewide average and substantially higher than seismic activity across most of the United States. Earthquake occurrence in Interior Alaska reflects ongoing crustal deformation associated with the Yakutat Terrane collision and regional fault systems, resulting in frequent small FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-5 Page 283 of 1055 earthquakes and periodic large-magnitude events capable of producing strong ground shaking across the Borough.398 8.2.1 Early and Mid-20th Century Earthquakes Several large earthquakes affected the Interior Alaska region during the early and mid-20th century. On August 27, 1904, a magnitude 7.3 earthquake occurred near Fairbanks, causing buildings to sway and crack and representing one of the largest early recorded earthquakes in Interior Alaska. In July 1912, a magnitude 7.2 earthquake near Paxson was reported as violent in Fairbanks and produced widespread landslides near the Alaska Range.399 A magnitude 7.3 earthquake occurred in July 1937 approximately 25 miles southeast of Fairbanks and was felt across much of Interior Alaska. Aftershocks continued for several months, and Fairbanks sustained widespread minor damage. Landslides occurred along the Tanana River, and ground deformation, mud boils, and surface cracking were observed in the surrounding area. In October 1947, a magnitude 7.2 earthquake near the Salcha River fault system caused moderate damage from Fairbanks to Nenana, with landslides reported along the Tanana River corridor.400 8.2.2 Seismic Activity and Earthquake Swarms In addition to large earthquakes, the FNSB has experienced periods of elevated seismic activity and earthquake swarms. A notable swarm occurred in June 1967, when numerous small earthquakes affected the Fairbanks area, producing minor localized damage. Additional swarm activity occurred in 1977 near North Pole along the Badger Road fault, involving thousands of small earthquakes but no significant structural damage. These events illustrate the persistent background seismicity affecting Interior Alaska.401 398 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska earthquake catalog and historical seismicity summaries. 399 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska earthquake catalog and historical seismicity summaries. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); AEIC. Historical earthquakes affecting Interior Alaska and the Fairbanks region. 400 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska earthquake catalog and historical seismicity summaries. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); AEIC. Historical earthquakes affecting Interior Alaska and the Fairbanks region. 401 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska earthquake catalog and historical seismicity summaries. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-6 Page 284 of 1055 8.2.3 The 2002 Denali Fault Earthquake The most significant recent seismic event affecting the region was the November 3, 2002, Denali Fault earthquake, which had a moment magnitude of 7.9 and remains the strongest earthquake ever recorded in Interior Alaska. The earthquake ruptured approximately 209 miles of fault surface along the Denali and Totschunda fault systems, with horizontal offsets reaching 20–22 feet in some locations. Shaking was felt across much of North America, including distant parts of the continental United States.402 Fairbanks experienced over three minutes of sustained ground shaking during the Denali Fault earthquake but avoided widespread structural damage due to distance from the rupture and favorable ground motion characteristics. Significant damage occurred to transportation infrastructure, including portions of the Richardson and Parks Highways, with total repair costs exceeding $25 million. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which traverses approximately 89 miles within the Borough, withstood lateral ground displacement of nearly 20 feet without rupture due to engineered fault-crossing design.403 8.2.4 Recent Earthquakes (2014–Present) Since 2002, the FNSB has continued to experience moderate and small earthquakes. In August 2014, earthquakes of magnitude 5.2 and 4.2 occurred in the Minto Flats seismic zone, followed by more than 2,000 aftershocks through the end of the year. Additional earthquakes of magnitude 5.8 to 6.1 occurred along segments of the Denali Fault system between 2015 and 2021, all of which were felt in the Borough but caused little to no reported damage.404 Smaller earthquakes, typically below magnitude 4.0, are felt periodically within the Borough, including events near Ester, North Nenana, South Van Horn, North Pole, and 402 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); AEIC. Historical earthquakes affecting Interior Alaska and the Fairbanks region. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The 2002 Denali Fault Earthquake: rupture characteristics, ground motion, and infrastructure impacts. 403 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); AEIC. Historical earthquakes affecting Interior Alaska and the Fairbanks region. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The 2002 Denali Fault Earthquake: rupture characteristics, ground motion, and infrastructure impacts. 404 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska earthquake catalog and historical seismicity summaries. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); AEIC. Historical earthquakes affecting Interior Alaska and the Fairbanks region. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-7 Page 285 of 1055 South Fairbanks between 2020 and 2021. While these events generally do not cause damage, they reinforce the ongoing seismic activity affecting the area.405 Most recently, the Salcha area experienced a localized earthquake swarm, as documented by the AEIC. Beginning in late 2025 and continuing into early 2026, numerous small-magnitude earthquakes occurred southeast of Fairbanks, primarily in the magnitude 1.5 to 3 range, with several events felt locally. No damage was reported; however, AEIC characterized the activity as a seismic swarm rather than a single mainshock-aftershock sequence. Such swarms are not uncommon in Interior Alaska and reflect ongoing crustal deformation associated with regional fault systems. While swarm activity does not necessarily indicate an impending larger earthquake, it reinforces the persistent and active seismic environment affecting the FNSB.406 Review of AEIC and USGS seismic records indicates that, aside from localized swarm activity, no additional damaging earthquakes affected the FNSB between 2021 and 2025. Overall, the historical record demonstrates that the FNSB is subject to frequent seismic activity and periodic large-magnitude earthquakes capable of producing strong ground shaking, infrastructure damage, and cascading impacts, even when epicenters are located outside the immediate Borough boundaries as illustrated in Figure 8-3.407 405 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska earthquake catalog and historical seismicity summaries. 406 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska earthquake catalog and historical seismicity summaries. Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska earthquake swarm summaries and recent seismicity reports (2025–2026). 407 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska earthquake catalog and historical seismicity summaries. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); AEIC. Historical earthquakes affecting Interior Alaska and the Fairbanks region. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-8 Page 286 of 1055 Figure 8-3: Map of Historical Regional Seismicity Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS, Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Emergency Operations, Retrieved on 6/4/2026. Figure 8-3 Note: This figure is provided for historical context; current seismic hazard characterization for the Borough is based on the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-9 Page 287 of 1055 Figure 8-3 illustrates the spatial distribution of historical seismic activity in the region surrounding the Borough. This pattern indicates that seismic events occur across a broad area of Interior Alaska, reinforcing that earthquakes affecting the FNSB may originate both locally and from regional fault systems. The distribution of these events supports the conclusion that seismic risk in the Borough is influenced by both nearby and distant seismic sources. 8.3 Extent Extent describes the severity or magnitude of a hazard, including the intensity, geographic scale, and potential level of impact on the planning area. The extent of seismic activity within the FNSB varies with location, seasonal conditions, and event characteristics. Seismic hazard extent is characterized by ground shaking intensity, duration, and geographic distribution. Impacts vary with proximity to fault systems, soil conditions, and structural vulnerability, with the potential for widespread effects, including infrastructure damage, ground failure, and disruption of lifeline systems. In the FNSB, seismic event extent may include ground shaking intensities ranging from Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) VI (strong shaking) to MMI VIII or higher (severe shaking) during large regional earthquakes. These levels of shaking can result in moderate to heavy structural damage, particularly to older or non-ductile buildings, and may produce widespread impacts to infrastructure systems. Ground-shaking duration may last from several seconds to several minutes, as demonstrated during the 2002 Denali Fault earthquake, increasing the potential for cumulative structural damage. Secondary effects, including liquefaction, ground settlement, and slope failure, may further increase the extent of hazards in areas with saturated or unconsolidated soils, extending impacts beyond the immediate epicentral region. Extent is further illustrated through hazard mapping and exposure analysis presented in Chapter 4. 8.4 Possible Impacts from Future Events Future earthquakes affecting the FNSB have the potential to cause significant impacts on life safety, infrastructure, and operations, particularly during large-magnitude regional events. Seismic hazard analyses indicate that much of Interior Alaska is subject to strong- FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-10 Page 288 of 1055 to-severe ground shaking that can damage structures, disrupt critical lifelines, and trigger cascading impacts across transportation, utilities, and emergency services.408 Ground shaking represents the primary earthquake hazard to the Borough. Strong shaking may cause structural damage to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings, particularly older structures not designed to meet modern seismic standards. Damage severity is influenced by building age, construction type, foundation conditions, and local soil characteristics, with soft or saturated soils increasing the potential for amplification and ground failure.409 Earthquakes may also cause ground deformation, including settlement, lateral spreading, and liquefaction in areas underlain by unconsolidated or water-saturated sediments, such as portions of the Tanana River Valley. These effects can damage foundations, roads, pipelines, utilidors, and buried utilities, complicating response and recovery efforts.410 Critical infrastructure systems are particularly vulnerable to seismic impacts. Transportation corridors, including the Richardson, Parks, and Steese Highways, rail infrastructure, and airport facilities, may be damaged by ground shaking, slope failures, or distress in bridges and embankments. Disruption to these systems could isolate communities, delay emergency response, and impede the movement of fuel, food, and medical supplies throughout Interior Alaska.411 Earthquake impacts on energy and lifeline systems could be severe. The TAPS, electrical transmission and distribution networks, fuel storage facilities, water and wastewater systems, and communications infrastructure may be affected by ground movement or 408 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Earthquake ground shaking, liquefaction, and infrastructure vulnerability guidance. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model – Interior Alaska seismic hazard characterization. 409 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Earthquake ground shaking, liquefaction, and infrastructure vulnerability guidance. 410 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Earthquake ground shaking, liquefaction, and infrastructure vulnerability guidance. Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC); FEMA. Earthquake impacts in cold-region environments and Interior Alaska infrastructure considerations. 411 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Earthquake ground shaking, liquefaction, and infrastructure vulnerability guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-11 Page 289 of 1055 loss of power. Damage to any of these systems could cause cascading impacts on the others, extending outages and recovery timelines.412 Military installations within the Borough, including Fort Wainwright and Eielson AFB, may also experience operational disruptions from seismic events. Damage to facilities, runways, utilities, or access routes could affect mission readiness, housing areas, and emergency response capabilities, with broader implications for regional and national defense operations.413 Seismic events occurring during winter conditions may present additional challenges, as extreme cold, limited daylight, and snow- or ice-covered transportation routes could hinder damage assessments, emergency response, and service restoration. These factors may increase risks to life safety and prolong recovery following a major earthquake.414 8.5 Recurrence Probability of Future Events Earthquakes differ from many other natural hazards in that their exact timing, location, and magnitude cannot be predicted. Instead, recurrence probability is evaluated using a combination of prehistoric evidence, historical earthquake records, and ongoing seismological monitoring conducted by the AEIC and the USGS.415 The FNSB is located within an actively deforming region of Interior Alaska, influenced by the Denali Fault system, Tintina/Kaltag Fault system, and distributed crustal deformation associated with the collision of the Yakutat Terrane. This tectonic setting produces frequent small earthquakes and periodic moderate- to large-magnitude events capable of generating strong ground shaking across the Borough.416 412 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Earthquake ground shaking, liquefaction, and infrastructure vulnerability guidance. Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC); FEMA. Earthquake impacts in cold-region environments and Interior Alaska infrastructure considerations. 413 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Earthquake ground shaking, liquefaction, and infrastructure vulnerability guidance. 414 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC); FEMA. Earthquake impacts in cold-region environments and Interior Alaska infrastructure considerations. 415 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska seismic monitoring and earthquake catalog summaries. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model. 416 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska seismic monitoring and earthquake catalog summaries. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); AEIC. Tectonic framework and fault systems affecting Interior Alaska. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-12 Page 290 of 1055 According to the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model, Interior Alaska, including the FNSB, has a high likelihood of experiencing strong-to-severe ground shaking over long time horizons, even though large earthquakes occur infrequently. These hazard estimates reflect the cumulative influence of multiple fault systems and diffuse seismic zones rather than reliance on individual mapped faults, recognizing that many Interior Alaska earthquakes occur on poorly expressed or unmapped structures.417 Local geologic and soil conditions, including unconsolidated sediments, permafrost, thermokarst terrain, and groundwater-saturated soils, do not affect the probability of an earthquake occurring but can significantly influence the severity of shaking and secondary effects such as liquefaction and ground deformation when earthquakes do occur.418 Based on the historical record and current seismic hazard models, earthquakes should be considered a persistent and recurring hazard for the FNSB. While most seismic events are small, there is potential for future moderate- to large-magnitude earthquakes that could cause widespread impacts, including infrastructure damage and cascading disruptions to essential services.419 8.6 Existing Seismic Hazard Actions Existing seismic hazard actions within the FNSB focus on risk reduction through building standards, regulatory oversight, public education, and interagency coordination. These actions are intended to reduce vulnerability to earthquake impacts by improving structural performance, increasing awareness, and supporting seismic-resilient design practices. Alaska Seismic Hazard Safety Commission The Alaska Seismic Hazard Safety Commission (ASHSC) is a statewide body composed of public and private-sector commissioners charged with increasing awareness of seismic hazards and promoting measures to reduce earthquake risk. A primary focus of the Commission is improving the seismic safety of public schools and other critical facilities. The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development serves as a liaison to the 417 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model. 418 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Earthquake ground shaking, liquefaction, and site response guidance. Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC); FEMA. Interior Alaska soil conditions, permafrost, and secondary earthquake effects. 419 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model. Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Interior Alaska seismic monitoring and earthquake catalog summaries. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-13 Page 291 of 1055 Commission, supporting coordination between seismic safety objectives and school construction and renovation programs. Through joint efforts involving the Commission and state agencies, Alaska has supported site-specific seismic design, engineering review, and construction inspection for new school facilities. The Commission also provides publicly accessible educational resources on earthquake preparedness, building safety, and mitigation strategies for communities across the state, including those in Interior Alaska.420 8.6.1 City of Fairbanks Within the City of Fairbanks, seismic risk reduction is supported through building permit review, code adoption, and construction inspection. The City’s Building Department is responsible for reviewing plans, issuing permits, and inspecting residential and commercial construction and renovation projects to ensure compliance with adopted building codes, including seismic design provisions of the IBC as locally adopted and amended. The Building Department also enforces codes governing structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and responds to complaints about unsafe or substandard buildings. Coordination with the Fairbanks Fire Department ensures that fire and life safety considerations are integrated into the permitting and inspection process. These regulatory activities help ensure that new development and substantial improvements incorporate seismic-resistant design appropriate for Interior Alaska conditions.421 8.6.2 City of North Pole The City of North Pole supports seismic hazard mitigation through a similar building- permitting and code-enforcement framework. The City’s Building Department issues construction permits and enforces locally adopted editions of the IBC, including applicable seismic provisions, as amended by local ordinance. Plan review and inspection processes verify that new construction and significant alterations meet structural safety requirements, reducing vulnerability to earthquake impacts. These measures support long-term mitigation by improving the seismic performance of buildings within the City’s jurisdiction.422 420 Alaska Seismic Hazard Safety Commission (ASHSC). Seismic safety programs, public education resources, and school facility guidance. 421 City of Fairbanks. Building Department code adoption, permitting, and inspection program documentation. 422 City of North Pole. Building Department code adoption and enforcement records related to structural safety. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-14 Page 292 of 1055 8.7 Future Seismic Mitigation Actions Future seismic mitigation actions in the FNSB will focus on reducing structural vulnerability, protecting critical lifelines, improving situational awareness, and strengthening community preparedness, recognizing that earthquakes cannot be prevented and that the severity of damage is influenced by preparedness and design decisions made in advance of an event.423 A primary long-term mitigation strategy is the continued application and periodic update of seismic provisions within adopted building codes. As new development and redevelopment occur, enforcement of modern seismic design standards will incrementally reduce risk by improving the performance of buildings during strong ground shaking. Emphasis on seismic resilience for critical facilities, including emergency response buildings, healthcare facilities, schools, utilities, and communications infrastructure, remains an important mitigation priority.424 The Borough and its municipal partners may also pursue seismic risk screening and assessment of existing structures, particularly older buildings constructed prior to the adoption of modern seismic codes. Identification of vulnerable building types and lifeline systems can inform future retrofit prioritization, capital improvement planning, and grant-funded mitigation opportunities through state and federal programs.425 Future mitigation efforts may include integration of seismic hazard considerations into land-use planning, capital project design, and infrastructure maintenance, particularly in areas underlain by unconsolidated or water-saturated soils that may be susceptible to amplified shaking or liquefaction. Coordination with the AEIC, the ASHSC, and federal partners will support the use of the most current seismic science in planning and project development.426 Public education and preparedness will continue to play a role in seismic mitigation. Expanded outreach related to earthquake safety, household preparedness, and business continuity planning can reduce life-safety risk and improve post-event recovery. 423 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Earthquake mitigation guidance, building performance, and risk reduction strategies. 424 City of Fairbanks; City of North Pole. Building code adoption, enforcement, and seismic design practices. 425 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Earthquake mitigation guidance, building performance, and risk reduction strategies. 426 Alaska Earthquake Information Center (AEIC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Seismic monitoring and hazard information for Interior Alaska. Alaska Seismic Hazard Safety Commission (ASHSC). Seismic safety, education, and mitigation program resources. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-15 Page 293 of 1055 Incorporating earthquake preparedness messaging into existing outreach efforts supports a consistent, all-hazards approach to risk reduction.427 Finally, as new seismic hazard data and modeling become available, including updates to national hazard models or locally relevant studies, the FNSB will continue to evaluate opportunities to incorporate updated information into planning, mapping, and mitigation strategies. These actions support adaptive risk management and help ensure that seismic mitigation remains aligned with current scientific understanding.428 427 Alaska Seismic Hazard Safety Commission (ASHSC). Seismic safety, education, and mitigation program resources. 428 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 8-16 Page 294 of 1055 9. Ground Failure Profile (Including Cryosphere) Ground failure hazards in the FNSB include landslides, slope instability, erosion, subsidence, liquefaction, and permafrost-related ground deformation. These hazards result from the loss of mechanical stability in soil or rock and may occur gradually over time or suddenly during triggering events such as intense precipitation, rapid snowmelt, thawing permafrost, or seismic shaking. Ground failure poses risks to transportation corridors, utilities, buildings, and critical infrastructure, particularly where development intersects steep terrain, river bluffs, ice-rich soils, or saturated sediments.429 Historic ground failure events within the Borough illustrate the consequences of slope instability and long-term ground movement on critical infrastructure. One notable example occurred along the Richardson Highway near Milepost 296.3, where a landslide affected approximately 140 feet of roadway. Pavement deformation was identified several years prior to remediation, with the rate of movement accelerating during 1999–2000, necessitating repeated roadway grading and stabilization measures to maintain safe travel conditions. This event highlights the progressive nature of certain ground-failure hazards in Interior Alaska and the importance of early detection, monitoring, and mitigation along key transportation routes.430 Because many ground failure processes in Interior Alaska are strongly influenced by cryosphere conditions, including permafrost and ground ice, these hazards are expected to evolve over time rather than remain static. As climate conditions, hydrology, and land use change, ground failure risk may increase in certain locations, reinforcing the need for site-specific evaluation and long-term planning to reduce future impacts.431 9.1 Nature and Location Ground failure occurs when soil or rock materials lose mechanical stability, resulting in collapse, downslope movement, settlement, lateral spreading, or surface deformation. In the FNSB, ground failure hazards include landslides, slope instability, erosion, subsidence, liquefaction, and cryosphere-driven deformation associated with permafrost and ground 429 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ground failure and landslide hazard characterization guidance. Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Ground failure processes, permafrost, and slope instability in Interior Alaska. 430 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). Richardson Highway landslide documentation and maintenance records (MP 296.3). 431 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Ground failure processes, permafrost, and slope instability in Interior Alaska. Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). Cryosphere-related ground deformation and permafrost degradation impacts. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-1 Page 295 of 1055 ice. These hazards may develop gradually over time or occur suddenly during triggering events such as intense precipitation, rapid snowmelt, thawing permafrost, or seismic shaking.432 The distribution and severity of ground failure hazards in the Borough are controlled by topography, surficial geology, soil type, groundwater conditions, vegetation cover, and cryosphere processes, as well as human activities that alter slope geometry or drainage. Areas of elevated risk include steep upland slopes, river bluffs along the Tanana, Chena, Salcha, and Chatanika Rivers, transportation corridors, and low-lying alluvial areas underlain by saturated sediments or ice-rich permafrost.433 9.1.1 Ground Failure Processes Landslides are a broad class of ground failure involving downslope movement of rock, soil, debris, or artificial fill. In Interior Alaska, landslides may be triggered by permafrost degradation, heavy rainfall, rapid snowmelt, erosion at the base of slopes, or seismic shaking, as well as by human activities such as excavation, vegetation removal, or altered surface and groundwater flow. Common landslide processes in the FNSB include rotational and translational slides, rockfalls, debris flows, earthflows, lateral spreads, and slow creep-type movements, as illustrated in Figure 9-1.434 432 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ground failure and landslide hazard characterization guidance. Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Landslide processes, loess geology, and surficial geology of Interior Alaska. 433 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Landslide processes, loess geology, and surficial geology of Interior Alaska. Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). Permafrost, thermokarst, and ground-ice hazards in Interior Alaska. 434 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Landslide processes, loess geology, and surficial geology of Interior Alaska. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-2 Page 296 of 1055 Figure 9-1: Landslide Classifications Source: 2018 Alaska State Hazard Mitigation Plan | USGS product Figure 9-1 illustrates common landslide classifications and failure mechanisms, including rotational and translational slides, debris flows, and other forms of mass movement. These classifications provide a framework for understanding the range of ground failure processes that may occur within the Borough and the conditions under which different types of slope instability may develop. In the FNSB, these processes are often influenced by permafrost conditions, groundwater, and seasonal thawing, which can significantly affect slope stability. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-3 Page 297 of 1055 A permafrost-specific form of landslide known as an active-layer detachment occurs when thawed surface soils slide along the impermeable top of frozen ground, often lubricated by trapped water. These failures can initiate rapidly during warm or wet periods and may transition into debris flows where slopes are steep and soils become saturated.435 Frozen Debris Lobes (FDLs) represent a unique, slow-moving landslide type found in permafrost-affected mountainous regions of Alaska. These features consist of ice-rich debris deforming downslope over long periods and can pose persistent threats to transportation infrastructure where they intersect road corridors.436 Subsidence occurs where the ground surface sinks or settles due to loss of subsurface support. In the FNSB, subsidence is most commonly associated with thawing ice-rich permafrost (thermokarst), erosion of fine-grained soils such as loess, piping caused by subsurface water flow, or seismic ground deformation. Subsidence may damage foundations, roads, and buried utilities and often develops progressively over time.437 9.1.2 Cryosphere-Related Ground Failure The cryosphere plays a central role in ground failure risk within the FNSB. The Borough lies within the discontinuous permafrost zone, where frozen ground is widespread but spatially variable. Ice-rich permafrost provides structural stability when frozen; however, warming temperatures, surface disturbance, or altered drainage can initiate thaw, resulting in thermokarst, differential settlement, surface cracking, and slope instability.438 Thawing ground ice can release volumes of water that exceed the pore space of soils, leading to downslope movement, erosion, and retrogressive thaw slumps. These processes may continue until the remaining ice is insulated by vegetation or sediment, 435 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). Permafrost, thermokarst, and ground-ice hazards in Interior Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); Alaska DGGS. Active-layer detachments, frozen debris lobes, and cryosphere-driven slope failures. 436 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); Alaska DGGS. Active-layer detachments, frozen debris lobes, and cryosphere-driven slope failures. 437 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ground failure and landslide hazard characterization guidance. Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). Permafrost, thermokarst, and ground-ice hazards in Interior Alaska. 438 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). Permafrost, thermokarst, and ground-ice hazards in Interior Alaska. Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Permafrost distribution and periglacial processes. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-4 Page 298 of 1055 making cryosphere-related ground failure a long-term, evolving hazard rather than a single, discrete event.439 The Ground Ice Hazard Map (Figure 9-2) illustrates areas of moderate to high ground ice content across the Borough, identifying locations where thaw-related deformation and infrastructure damage are most likely without site-specific mitigation.440 Figure 9-2: Map of Ground Ice Hazard Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS 439 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); Alaska DGGS. Active-layer detachments, frozen debris lobes, and cryosphere-driven slope failures. 440 Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS; State of Alaska. Ground ice, landslide susceptibility, and liquefaction mapping. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-5 Page 299 of 1055 Figure 9-2 illustrates the spatial distribution of ground ice content across the Borough, highlighting areas with moderate to high susceptibility to thaw-related ground deformation. These patterns indicate that permafrost-related ground failure risk is not uniform but is concentrated in areas with ice-rich soils, where thawing can lead to subsidence, slope instability, and damage to infrastructure and foundations. The overlap of these high-ground ice areas with existing and future development increases the potential for long-term infrastructure challenges and maintenance requirements. Research conducted by the Alaska CCHRC and University of Alaska partners has documented that ground failure associated with thawing permafrost is a leading cause of foundation settlement, structural distortion, and utility damage in Interior Alaska. Common failure modes include differential settlement beneath heated structures, loss of bearing capacity in ice-rich soils, and deformation of utilidors and roadbeds where thermal regimes are altered. These findings reinforce that ground failure risk in the FNSB is closely tied to development practices, heat transfer to the ground, and surface disturbance, as well as natural geologic conditions.441 9.1.3 Hillside Erosion and Loess-Related Hazards Hillside erosion is a significant ground-failure concern due to the widespread presence of loess, a fine-grained, wind-deposited silt that is unconsolidated and highly erodible. The Fairbanks area contains some of the thickest loess deposits in the United States, ranging from shallow deposits over bedrock to thicknesses exceeding 200 feet in areas such as Gold Hill near Ester.442 Because loess lacks cohesion, it is easily mobilized by surface runoff unless stabilized by vegetation. Piping, caused by subsurface water removing fine particles, can lead to voids, collapse, and subsidence. Scouring at the base of slopes and infrastructure further increases instability, particularly along roads, riverbanks, and drainage corridors.443 441 Alaska Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC). Permafrost, foundation performance, and cold-climate construction research for Interior Alaska. 442 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Landslide processes, loess geology, and surficial geology of Interior Alaska. Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). Loess deposits, piping, erosion, and hillside instability in the Fairbanks area. 443 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). Loess deposits, piping, erosion, and hillside instability in the Fairbanks area. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-6 Page 300 of 1055 9.1.4 Liquefaction Susceptibility Liquefaction is a ground failure process in which water-saturated, unconsolidated soils lose strength during seismic shaking, temporarily behaving as a fluid. In the FNSB, liquefaction susceptibility is highest in low-lying alluvial areas of the Tanana River Valley, where loose sands and silts and shallow groundwater are present.444 The Liquefaction Susceptibility Map (Figure 9-3) identifies areas with low to very high potential, demonstrating that earthquake-related ground failure risk is spatially variable and strongly governed by local soil and groundwater conditions rather than by proximity alone to fault systems.445 444 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Landslide processes, loess geology, and surficial geology of Interior Alaska. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); USGS. Liquefaction susceptibility and seismic ground failure guidance. 445 Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS; State of Alaska. Ground ice, landslide susceptibility, and liquefaction mapping. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-7 Page 301 of 1055 Figure 9-3: Map of Liquefaction Susceptibility Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-8 Page 302 of 1055 Figure 9-3 illustrates the spatial distribution of liquefaction susceptibility across the Borough, including areas with varying potential levels based on soil type and groundwater conditions. These patterns indicate that liquefaction risk is concentrated in unconsolidated alluvial soils and in areas with shallow groundwater, particularly within the Tanana River Valley, where seismic shaking may cause ground deformation and damage to infrastructure. The overlap of these susceptible areas with developed land and infrastructure underscores the importance of site-specific geotechnical evaluation and resilient design practices in mitigating earthquake-related ground failure. Together, the landslide, ground-ice, and liquefaction mapping illustrate that ground failure hazards in the FNSB are heterogeneous, cryosphere-influenced, and location-specific, reinforcing the importance of geotechnical evaluation, careful land-use planning, and infrastructure design tailored to local conditions.446 9.2 Historical Occurrences Ground failure hazards (including cryosphere-related processes) have occurred repeatedly throughout the recorded history of the FNSB, affecting transportation corridors, buildings, and other infrastructure. Many of these events developed gradually over time rather than as single catastrophic failures, reflecting the combined influence of permafrost degradation, loess erosion, groundwater movement, and seismic shaking characteristic of Interior Alaska.447 9.2.1 Landslides and Slope Failures Documented landslides and slope failures have occurred in multiple parts of the Borough. Debris flows and slope failures were observed in the Chena River drainage during the 1967 flood, illustrating the interaction between hydrologic events and unstable terrain. Large seismic events have also triggered landslides and ground failures along major transportation corridors, including along the Richardson Highway (1937), the Tanana 446 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ground failure and landslide hazard characterization guidance. 447 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ground failure and landslide hazard documentation and mitigation guidance. Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Landslides, erosion, and slope instability in Interior Alaska. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-9 Page 303 of 1055 River corridor (1947 and 1957), and Chena Ridge (1957). These events demonstrate the sensitivity of slopes and river bluffs to seismic shaking in the region.448 The Richardson Highway southeast of Eielson AFB has a long history of rockslides and large ground failures that have required repeated repairs and, in some cases, realignment of roadway segments. These failures have imposed ongoing maintenance costs and highlighted the vulnerability of critical regional transportation routes to ground instability.449 9.2.2 LiDAR-Identified Landslides Advances in terrain mapping have significantly improved the understanding of the distribution of ground failure in the Borough. Analysis of high-resolution LiDAR datasets acquired in 2017 and updated in 2023 across much of the populated FNSB identified thousands of landslide-like features, ranging from active to inactive, based on geomorphic expression. The updated 2023 LiDAR further refined the identification of subtle slope deformations, thaw-related subsidence features, and cryosphere-driven ground instability not previously detectable using aerial photography or satellite imagery alone. These findings indicate that ground failure features are more widespread and persistent than historically documented, particularly in forested and low-relief areas.450 9.2.3 Permafrost Degradation and Cryosphere Impacts Permafrost and periglacial hazards represent the most widespread ground-related hazards in the Borough. Early development in the Fairbanks area often relied on construction practices imported from outside Alaska, resulting in significant damage where buildings and infrastructure were placed on ice-rich or unstable permafrost. Historical accounts documented by Péwé describe costly failures at locations such as the KFAR Radio Station, the University Presbyterian Church-School building, housing areas on Fort Wainwright, and structures along Farmers Loop Road, many of which were 448 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Landslides, erosion, and slope instability in Interior Alaska. Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). Richardson Highway and regional roadway ground failure maintenance records. 449 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). Richardson Highway and regional roadway ground failure maintenance records. 450 Fairbanks North Star Borough. 2017 LiDAR analysis and landslide feature identification. Fairbanks North Star Borough. 2023 LiDAR dataset and terrain analysis supporting landslide, subsidence, and ground-failure mapping. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-10 Page 304 of 1055 affected by thermokarst and differential settlement following vegetation removal and ground warming.451 As cold-climate engineering practices evolved, damage rates declined; however, permafrost-related ground failure remains a persistent issue. Each year, the Alaska DOT&PF and FNSB RSAs repair roads damaged by permafrost thaw, subsidence, and frost heave. Common impacts include pavement cracking, settlement, roadbed twisting, and deformation of associated utilities.452 Analyses by UAF SNAP and ACCAP indicate that increasing ground temperatures and changes in seasonal freeze–thaw patterns are consistent with the observed persistence and geographic spread of permafrost-related ground failure documented in the Borough.453 9.2.4 Documented Sinkholes and Subsidence Events Several discrete sinkhole and subsidence events have been documented in recent decades. In February 2011, thawing permafrost created multiple sinkholes on private property and within public rights-of-way, including a sinkhole triggered by parking-lot construction at the UAF Geophysical Institute. In 2013, Goldstream Road required reconstruction due to permafrost subsidence.454 During June and July 2014, multiple sinkholes were documented across the Borough. These included a sinkhole that closed the Wendell Avenue Bridge; sinkholes on the UAF campus near the Taku parking lot and the West Ridge Research Building; a 72-foot-deep sinkhole discovered on Gold Hill; and sinkhole damage that required closure of the Clear Creek Bridge near Salcha. Additional sinkholes were documented on Fort Wainwright in 2017, and subsidence-related damage continued in 2019, including sinkhole formation in 451 Péwé, T.L. Geologic Hazards of the Fairbanks Area, Alaska. University of Alaska Fairbanks. 452 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). Richardson Highway and regional roadway ground failure maintenance records. Fairbanks North Star Borough; Alaska DOT&PF. Permafrost subsidence, sinkhole, and roadway reconstruction documentation. 453 University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Climate-driven permafrost thaw and ground stability implications for Interior Alaska infrastructure. 454 Fairbanks North Star Borough; Alaska DOT&PF. Permafrost subsidence, sinkhole, and roadway reconstruction documentation. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-11 Page 305 of 1055 Goldstream and stabilization efforts beneath a residential cabin using jacking and cribbing.455 In 2020, sections of Chena Hot Springs Road required reconstruction due to permafrost-related subsidence, illustrating the continuing nature of cryosphere-driven ground failure affecting transportation infrastructure.456 Additional permafrost‑related sinkholes and erosion events have been documented in recent years. In 2009, a sinkhole caused the closure of Annie Avenue in Fairbanks due to thaw‑related ground subsidence. On May 18, 2022, a large sinkhole measuring approximately 20 feet wide and 25 feet deep developed near City Lights Boulevard in the Birch Hill area, attributed to degrading permafrost and drainage conditions. During the 2023 winter breakup season, prolonged riverbank erosion and ice action along the Tanana River caused the complete loss of a residential structure when the supporting bank failed, and the house was washed into the river. These events further demonstrate the continuing and evolving nature of cryosphere‑driven ground failure hazards within the Borough.457 9.2.5 Hillside Erosion Hillside erosion has historically occurred in the Borough, particularly where ditches and channels constructed to support placer mining failed, allowing water to erode deep gullies measuring 10 to 20 feet deep and extending up to a quarter mile in length. Many of these erosion scars remain visible today. Hillside erosion continues to pose risks to roads located in hilly terrain, particularly during periods of heavy precipitation or rapid snowmelt, even though no recent standalone hillside erosion disasters have been formally documented since earlier hazard mitigation planning efforts.458 Overall, the historical record demonstrates that ground failure hazards (including cryosphere-related processes) in the FNSB are persistent, widespread, and often under-documented, with impacts that accumulate over time rather than occurring as 455 Fairbanks North Star Borough; Alaska DOT&PF. Permafrost subsidence, sinkhole, and roadway reconstruction documentation. 456 Fairbanks North Star Borough; Alaska DOT&PF. Permafrost subsidence, sinkhole, and roadway reconstruction documentation. 457 Fairbanks North Star Borough; Alaska DOT&PF. Permafrost subsidence, sinkhole, and roadway reconstruction documentation. 458 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Landslides, erosion, and slope instability in Interior Alaska. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-12 Page 306 of 1055 isolated events. These patterns underscore the importance of long-term monitoring, site-specific investigation, and proactive mitigation to reduce future damage.459 9.3 Extent Extent describes the severity or magnitude of a hazard, including the intensity, geographic scale, and potential level of impact on the planning area. The extent of ground failure (including cryosphere) within the FNSB varies based on location, seasonal conditions, and specific event characteristics. The extent of ground failure hazards, including permafrost degradation, subsidence, and slope instability, varies based on soil conditions, temperature changes, and land use. Effects may be localized but can cause significant damage to infrastructure, buildings, and transportation systems, particularly in areas where development is sensitive to ground conditions. In the FNSB, ground failure extent may range from small-scale surface deformation and settlement of a few inches to large slope failures, sinkholes, or subsidence features measuring several feet to tens of feet in depth or displacement. Impacts may be highly localized, affecting individual structures or road segments, or may extend along transportation corridors where slope instability, permafrost degradation, or erosion affects multiple miles of infrastructure. Some ground failure processes, such as landslides or liquefaction, may occur suddenly and produce immediate damage, while cryosphere- driven processes such as permafrost thaw, thermokarst, and creep may develop gradually over years to decades, resulting in cumulative and widespread impacts to buildings, utilities, and transportation systems across the Borough. Extent is further illustrated through hazard mapping and exposure analysis presented in Chapter 4. 9.4 Possible Impacts from Future Events Future ground failure hazards (including cryosphere-related processes) events are expected to pose ongoing and potentially increasing risks to infrastructure, transportation, and community access within the FNSB. Because many ground failure processes in Interior Alaska develop incrementally over time, impacts may accumulate 459 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ground failure and landslide hazard documentation and mitigation guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-13 Page 307 of 1055 gradually before reaching thresholds that require emergency response or major reconstruction.460 Ground failure hazards, including landslides, subsidence, erosion, and permafrost-related deformation, may damage roads, bridges, utilities, buildings, and foundations, particularly where infrastructure is located on steep slopes, ice-rich permafrost, loess deposits, or saturated alluvial soils. Damage to transportation corridors can reduce or eliminate access for school transportation, emergency services, fuel delivery, postal service, and maintenance crews, isolating residents and increasing response times during emergencies.461 Cryosphere-driven ground failure is closely linked to temperature and precipitation patterns, making these hazards sensitive to changing environmental conditions. Warming ground temperatures altered freeze–thaw cycles, and increased moisture availability can accelerate permafrost thaw, thermokarst development, frost heave, and differential settlement, increasing the frequency and severity of infrastructure damage if not addressed through design and maintenance practices.462 Ground failure impacts may be compounded by other hazards. Seismic shaking can trigger landslides and liquefaction in susceptible soils, while heavy precipitation, rapid snowmelt, wildfire suppression activities, or changes to surface drainage can exacerbate erosion and slope instability. These interactions can increase repair costs, extend recovery timelines, and place additional strain on public works and emergency management resources.463 Economic impacts of ground-failure hazards (including cryosphere-related processes) can be substantial and persistent. Repeated repairs to roads, utilities, and buildings divert resources from other priorities, and long-term instability may affect housing availability, infrastructure reliability, and the feasibility of development in high-risk areas. As 460 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ground failure and landslide impact guidance and mitigation principles. Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Ground failure processes and triggering mechanisms in Interior Alaska. 461 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF); Fairbanks North Star Borough. Infrastructure damage and maintenance impacts associated with permafrost and ground instability. 462 University of Alaska Fairbanks, SNAP / ACCAP. Climate influences on permafrost thaw, freeze–thaw cycles, and ground stability in Interior Alaska. Alaska Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC). Cold-climate construction and infrastructure performance related to cryosphere hazards. 463 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Ground failure processes and triggering mechanisms in Interior Alaska. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); USGS. Interactions between seismic activity, landslides, and liquefaction. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-14 Page 308 of 1055 demonstrated by past events, failure to account for ground conditions during development can result in recurring damage and escalating maintenance costs over time.464 Taken together, these potential impacts indicate that ground-failure hazards (including cryosphere-related processes) pose a chronic and evolving risk to the FNSB. Effective mitigation will require site-specific investigation, informed land-use planning, resilient infrastructure design, and continued monitoring, particularly in areas identified as susceptible to landslides, ground ice, and liquefaction mapping.465 9.5 Recurrence Probability of Future Events Ground failure hazards (including cryosphere-related processes) differ from many natural hazards in that their exact timing, location, and magnitude cannot be predicted. Instead, probability is evaluated based on historical occurrence, geologic conditions, and environmental drivers, including the presence of permafrost, soil characteristics, hydrology, and climate influences.466 Within the FNSB, ground failure should be considered a highly likely and recurring hazard due to the widespread presence of discontinuous permafrost, ice-rich soils, loess deposits, and variable groundwater conditions. These factors create conditions in which ground deformation, subsidence, erosion, and slope instability occur regularly across the Borough, often without a single triggering event.467 Most ground failure events in the Borough develop incrementally, with small changes accumulating over time before reaching thresholds that result in noticeable damage, such as roadway deformation, structural settlement, or sinkhole formation. However, more 464 Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF); Fairbanks North Star Borough. Infrastructure damage and maintenance impacts associated with permafrost and ground instability. Alaska Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC). Impacts of thawing permafrost on buildings, foundations, and utilities in Interior Alaska. 465 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ground failure and landslide impact guidance and mitigation principles. 466 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ground failure hazard characterization and recurrence guidance. Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Interior Alaska ground failure processes and hazard occurrence. 467 Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Interior Alaska ground failure processes and hazard occurrence. Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS; LiDAR-based terrain and ground failure mapping (2017, 2023 updates). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-15 Page 309 of 1055 rapid failures may occur when ground conditions are stressed by heavy precipitation, rapid snowmelt, seismic shaking, or disturbance of vegetation and surface drainage.468 Cryosphere conditions play a central role in recurrence probability. The FNSB lies within the discontinuous permafrost zone, where frozen ground is present but highly variable in thickness and stability. Permafrost thaw is influenced by air temperature, snow cover, and surface disturbance, all of which affect ground temperatures and soil strength. Increased snow depth can insulate the ground from winter cooling, leading to warmer subsurface conditions and reduced stability, while warmer air temperatures accelerate thaw of ice-rich soils.469 As ground temperatures increase, permafrost soils may experience loss of bearing capacity, reduced shear strength, and increased creep rates, resulting in a greater likelihood of subsidence and deformation. Infrastructure constructed on or within permafrost may become increasingly vulnerable over time, even where originally designed for cold-region conditions.470 Human activities can also influence the likelihood of ground failure. Construction of buildings, roads, and utilities can transfer heat into the ground or disturb insulating vegetation, accelerating permafrost thaw and increasing the probability of subsidence and slope instability. Improperly designed or maintained infrastructure may further exacerbate these processes by altering drainage patterns or concentrating loads on unstable soils.471 Based on the historical record, current geologic conditions, and environmental influences, ground failure and cryosphere-related hazards in the FNSB should be considered a persistent risk, with a high likelihood of continued occurrence. While most events are 468 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ground failure hazard characterization and recurrence guidance. 469 Alaska Climate Research Center; UAF SNAP / ACCAP. Temperature trends and snowpack influence on permafrost stability. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); DGGS. Permafrost thermal dynamics and soil mechanical changes under warming conditions. 470 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); DGGS. Permafrost thermal dynamics and soil mechanical changes under warming conditions. 471 Alaska Cold Climate Housing Research Center (CCHRC). Effects of infrastructure and surface disturbance on permafrost degradation. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-16 Page 310 of 1055 localized and develop gradually, their cumulative impacts can be significant, particularly when they affect transportation corridors, utilities, and developed areas.472 472 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Ground failure hazard characterization and recurrence guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 9-17 Page 311 of 1055 10. Mitigation Strategy This chapter presents the mitigation strategy for the FNSB, developed to reduce long- term risk to life, property, critical facilities, infrastructure, and essential services from natural hazards. The strategy is based on the risk assessment findings presented in Chapter 4 and incorporates stakeholder input, local capabilities, and current and future hazard conditions. The mitigation strategy establishes guiding principles, goals, and priority actions that address the Borough’s most significant vulnerabilities. Emphasis is placed on actions that improve life safety, protect critical infrastructure, and enhance resilience to multi-hazard and extended-duration events. Implementation is supported through the Mitigation Action Plan (MAP), which provides a framework for prioritization, coordination, and ongoing evaluation. 10.1 Mitigation Strategy and Overview This section updates the mitigation strategy included in the 2021 FNSB MJ-HMP, which was developed with extensive stakeholder participation. The overall approach, goals, and intent of the 2021 mitigation strategy remain valid and are reaffirmed through this update. Revisions reflect changes in local conditions, stakeholder input collected during the 2026 update process, and progress made since plan adoption.473 The mitigation strategy continues to focus on reducing long-term risk to life, property, critical facilities, infrastructure, and essential services from natural hazards. Emphasis is placed on mitigation actions that are feasible within existing legal, regulatory, and fiscal authority, and that can be implemented incrementally over the life of the plan. This approach recognizes the Borough’s diverse jurisdictions, varied hazard exposure, and capacity constraints.474 Mitigation actions were developed directly from the risk assessment findings in Chapter 4, with priority given to high-risk hazards and vulnerabilities identified through exposure and impact analysis. Mitigation actions are guided by the following principles, which are consistent with those established in the 2021 Plan and reaffirmed by stakeholders during this update: 473 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process and Stakeholder Engagement. 474 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-1 Page 312 of 1055 • Focus on life safety and protection of critical services; • Address multiple hazards where practicable; • Coordinate mitigation with existing plans, programs, and capital investments; and • Recognize jurisdictional limitations and rely on partnerships and voluntary participation where regulatory authority is limited.475 Stakeholder feedback during the 2026 update emphasized the continued importance of wildfire risk reduction, emergency access and egress, protection of utilities and lifelines, and mitigation measures that support extended-duration incidents. These priorities build on and reinforce the mitigation needs identified in the 2021 stakeholder process and are reflected in the updated MAP. While priorities have been refined to reflect current conditions, they do not fundamentally alter the mitigation strategy established in 2021.476 The overall structure and guiding principles of the mitigation strategy are summarized in Table 10-1. Table 10-1: Summary of Mitigation Strategy and Guiding Principles Section Element Summary 10.1 Plan Continuity Mitigation strategy builds on the 2021 MJ-HMP and reaffirms its overall approach and intent 10.1 Primary Focus Reduce long-term risk to life, property, critical facilities, infrastructure, and essential services 10.1 Implementation Incremental implementation within existing legal Approach and fiscal authority 10.1 Life Safety Prioritize protection of life and continuity of critical services 10.1 Multi-Hazard Favor mitigation measures that reduce risk across Mitigation multiple hazards 10.1 Plan Integration Coordinate mitigation with existing plans, programs, and capital investments 475 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process and Stakeholder Engagement. 476 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process and Stakeholder Engagement. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-2 Page 313 of 1055 Section Element Summary 10.1 Jurisdictional Reality Rely on partnerships and voluntary participation where regulatory authority is limited 10.1 Stakeholder Wildfire risk, access and egress, utilities and Priorities lifelines, extended-duration incidents As shown in Table 10-1, the mitigation strategy is centered on reducing risk to life and critical services through coordinated, multi-hazard approaches that align with existing plans and jurisdictional capabilities. These guiding principles support the selection and prioritization of mitigation actions described in the MAP. The mitigation strategy is implemented through the hazard mitigation plan goals, supported by the MAP, and maintained through the plan maintenance process described later in this document. This structure ensures continuity between planning cycles while allowing for adaptive updates as conditions, risks, and capabilities evolve.477 10.2 Capability Assessment 10.2.1 Purpose and Methodology This Capability Assessment updates the assessment completed during the 2021 FNSB MJ- HMP. The assessment evaluates current administrative, technical, legal, fiscal, and coordination capabilities relevant to hazard mitigation and identifies both capabilities that support mitigation implementation and constraints that continue to affect the pace and scope of mitigation activities.478 The assessment was updated using the following methods:  Review of existing plans, ordinances, policies, and programs relevant to hazard mitigation;  Stakeholder input collected during the 2026 plan update process, including feedback on ongoing challenges and priorities; and 477 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process and Stakeholder Engagement. 478 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-3 Page 314 of 1055  Consideration of changes since 2021 related to staffing, funding, workload, and operational conditions, including lessons learned during extended-duration incidents.479 This approach ensures continuity with the 2021 plan while incorporating updated information on current capabilities and constraints affecting mitigation implementation.480 10.2.2 Administrative and Technical Capabilities The FNSB Emergency Operations Department remains responsible for coordinating hazard mitigation planning, grant administration, and interagency coordination. This role is unchanged from the 2021 MJ-HMP and continues to serve as the central administrative function supporting mitigation activities across the Borough.481 In addition to Borough-level capabilities, the Cities of Fairbanks and North Pole maintain administrative and technical capabilities that support mitigation implementation within their respective jurisdictions. Municipal departments, including planning, public works, fire, and emergency management personnel, support mitigation through local infrastructure planning, emergency response coordination, code enforcement, and participation in hazard mitigation planning and grant activities. These capabilities allow each municipality to implement jurisdiction-specific mitigation actions identified in the MAP while coordinating with Borough, state, and federal partners. Administrative capabilities supporting mitigation include:  Hazard mitigation plan development, maintenance, and FEMA compliance;  Grant application, management, and reporting for mitigation-related funding opportunities;  Coordination with municipal governments, fire service areas, state and federal agencies, utilities, non-governmental organizations, and other partners; and 479 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement and Planning Process. 480 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. 481 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-4 Page 315 of 1055  Public education and outreach related to hazard awareness, preparedness, and mitigation.482 Technical capabilities to support mitigation are provided by Borough and municipal planning staff, public works and engineering departments, utilities, fire service areas, and state and federal partners. These capabilities support activities such as floodplain management, infrastructure and capital improvement planning, wildfire and urban conflagration mitigation, and post-event recovery coordination.483 Stakeholders and staff noted that staffing capacity and workload demands, particularly during prolonged or overlapping emergency incidents, continue to affect the timing and implementation of mitigation projects. This constraint was identified in the 2021 plan and remains applicable during the current update cycle, underscoring the need for incremental, prioritized mitigation actions that align with available capacity.484 10.2.3 Legal and Regulatory Capabilities The legal and regulatory framework influencing hazard mitigation in the FNSB remains largely unchanged from that described in the 2021 MJ-HMP. Regulatory authority relevant to mitigation is distributed among the Borough and incorporated municipalities and varies significantly by location.485 Each participating jurisdiction maintains legal and regulatory capabilities that support the implementation of hazard mitigation strategies within its authority. Participating jurisdictions maintain complementary legal and regulatory authorities that support hazard mitigation implementation. The FNSB is responsible for land-use planning, zoning, and development regulations that guide growth and reduce exposure to hazard-prone areas. The Cities of Fairbanks and North Pole enforce adopted building codes, including the International Building Code (IBC) (see Table 2-5), and administer permitting processes 482 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement and Planning Process. 483 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. 484 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement and Planning Process. 485 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-5 Page 316 of 1055 that ensure development meets applicable safety and resilience standards. Collectively, these authorities provide a regulatory framework to reduce hazard risk through risk- informed development and resilient construction practices. Floodplain management within the Borough is conducted under Title 15, consistent with NFIP requirements. This authority supports mitigation of flood risk through development standards, permitting, and participation in the NFIP, but does not extend to comprehensive land-use regulation outside mapped special flood hazard areas.486 Subdivision review conducted under Title 17 provides limited authority to address issues such as access, drainage, and utility layout at the time of development. While this process allows some consideration of hazard exposure, it does not provide broad authority to require mitigation measures beyond subdivision-level infrastructure improvements.487 Zoning authority under Title 18 applies borough-wide, including unincorporated areas of the FNSB, and provides a general framework for regulating land use and development patterns. However, authority for building code adoption and enforcement outside of floodplain regulations (Title 15) is held primarily by the Cities of Fairbanks and North Pole. As a result, while the Borough can influence development through zoning and subdivision processes, its ability to regulate construction standards and structural mitigation measures in unincorporated areas is limited. Consequently, mitigation in these areas continues to rely heavily on education, infrastructure planning, coordination with service areas and utilities, and voluntary participation.488 As noted in the 2021 MJ-HMP, these limitations significantly constrain the use of regulatory mitigation measures in unincorporated areas. Mitigation, therefore, continues to rely heavily on education, infrastructure planning, coordination with service areas and utilities, and voluntary participation, particularly for hazards such as wildfire and urban conflagration, where exposure is influenced by development location and access.489 486 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Borough Code (Titles 15). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations and Floodplain Management Requirements. 487 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Borough Code (Titles 17). 488 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Borough Code (Titles 15 and 18) and Municipal Code Authority Overview. 489 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Borough Code (Titles 15, 17, and 18) and Municipal Code Authority Overview. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-6 Page 317 of 1055 10.2.4 Fiscal Capabilities Fiscal capacity for hazard mitigation within the FNSB remains limited and is generally consistent with conditions described in the 2021 MJ-HMP. Mitigation activities are supported by a combination of local, service-area, and external funding sources rather than by dedicated mitigation revenue streams.490 Mitigation activities are supported by a range of funding sources, including:  Local operating and capital budgets, where mitigation can be incorporated into planned maintenance or capital improvement projects;  Fire service area and other service area funding, where applicable and authorized;  State and federal grant programs, including FEMA HMA programs; and  Partnerships with utilities and other agencies that integrate mitigation into infrastructure investments.491 The primary funding sources available to support mitigation activities in the Borough are summarized in Table 10-2. Table 10-2: Financial Resources Funding Source Generally Available Local operating/capital budgets Limited Service area funding Varies FEMA mitigation grants Competitive Utility partnerships Project-specific As shown in Table 10-2, mitigation funding in the Borough is limited and highly dependent on external sources, particularly competitive state and federal grant programs. Local and service area funding sources are available but are typically constrained and must be 490 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. 491 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Grant Programs Guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-7 Page 318 of 1055 balanced against other operational and capital priorities. These conditions reinforce the need for strategic prioritization of mitigation projects and reliance on partnerships to support implementation. These fiscal limitations influence the timing, scope, and feasibility of mitigation actions identified in the MAP. Stakeholders reaffirmed that most large-scale mitigation projects depend on external grant funding. As a result, mitigation implementation is influenced by grant availability, eligibility requirements, matching fund obligations, and grant application and award cycles. These factors continue to affect the timing, sequencing, and scope of mitigation projects, reinforcing the importance of prioritization and incremental implementation.492 10.2.5 Interagency Coordination Capabilities Hazard mitigation implementation within the FNSB relies on ongoing coordination among Borough departments, municipalities, fire service areas, utilities, state agencies, tribal entities, federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations. Stakeholders consistently emphasized that effective mitigation depends on sustained coordination and partnerships, particularly in areas where regulatory authority is limited.493 Coordination mechanisms identified in the 2021 MJ-HMP remain in place and continue to support the implementation of mitigation measures. These include interagency planning efforts, shared participation in mitigation grant programs, coordination through emergency management and wildfire planning processes, and collaboration during preparedness, response, and recovery activities.494 During the 2026 update process, stakeholders reaffirmed the importance of coordination in addressing complex, multi-jurisdictional hazards such as wildfires, urban conflagrations, flooding, and extended-duration incidents. Coordination with utilities, transportation providers, and emergency services was identified as particularly critical for 492 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. 493 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Interagency Coordination Records, 2021–2026. 494 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-8 Page 319 of 1055 mitigation actions related to lifelines, access and egress, and the continuity of essential services.495 10.2.6 Capability Summary Overall, participating jurisdictions within the FNSB possess adequate capability to implement the MAP within existing legal, fiscal, staffing, and coordination constraints. Capabilities identified in the 2021 MJ-HMP remain generally applicable, and the updated mitigation actions and timelines reflect realistic expectations based on current authority, workload, funding availability, and partnership structures.496 The Capability Assessment confirms that mitigation success in the Borough depends less on regulatory authority alone and more on prioritization, interagency coordination, incremental implementation, and leveraging external funding and partnerships. This approach aligns mitigation actions with existing capacity while allowing flexibility to adapt as conditions and resources evolve over the life of the plan.497 This Capability Assessment reflects the combined and complementary capabilities of the FNSB, the City of Fairbanks, and the City of North Pole, each of which contributes to the implementation of mitigation within its jurisdictional authority. The key findings of the capability assessment are summarized in Table 10-3. 495 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement and Planning Process. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Interagency Coordination Records, 2021–2026. 496 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement and Planning Process. 497 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Capability Assessment, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Legal, Regulatory, and Fiscal Capability Assessment, 2021 Plan. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-9 Page 320 of 1055 Table 10-3: Capability Assessment Summary Section Capability Area Key Considerations 10.2.1 Assessment Basis Review of plans, ordinances, programs, stakeholder input, and post-2021 conditions 10.2.2 Administrative The Emergency Operations Department coordinates mitigation planning, grants, and compliance 10.2.2 Technical Support from planning, public works, utilities, fire service areas, and partner agencies 10.2.3 Legal / Regulatory Floodplain (Title 15), subdivision review (Title 17), borough-wide zoning (Title 18), limited building code authority outside cities 10.2.4 Fiscal Reliance on grants, local budgets, service areas, and partner contributions 10.2.5 Coordination Interjurisdictional and interagency coordination is essential for mitigation success 10.2.6 Overall Capability Adequate capability exists within known authority, staffing, and funding constraints Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2026 Update. As shown in Table 10-3, jurisdictions within the Borough have adequate capability to implement mitigation actions within existing authority, staffing, and funding constraints. Successful implementation relies on coordination among agencies, prioritization of actions, and effective use of external funding and partnerships rather than on regulatory authority alone. These capabilities support the implementation of the mitigation actions identified in the MAP and reinforce the importance of collaborative, multi-jurisdictional approaches to risk reduction. 10.3 Mitigation Project and Funding Process 10.3.1 Overview This section updates the mitigation project and funding processes described in the 2021 FNSB MJ-HMP. The overall process for identifying, prioritizing, funding, and implementing mitigation projects remains unchanged and continues to meet FEMA requirements for local hazard mitigation planning.498 498 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook and Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-10 Page 321 of 1055 The MAP remains the primary mechanism for documenting, prioritizing, and tracking mitigation projects over the plan’s five-year cycle. The MAP provides a structured framework for aligning mitigation actions with identified hazards, available capabilities, and funding opportunities, while allowing flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and resources.499 10.3.2 Project Identification Mitigation projects are identified through multiple complementary inputs, ensuring that actions address documented risks, stakeholder priorities, and operational experience. Sources used to identify mitigation projects include:  Findings from hazard risk and vulnerability assessments;  Stakeholder and agency input collected during the plan update process;  Lessons learned from emergency incidents, exercises, and after-action reviews;  Capital improvement planning processes and infrastructure assessments; and  Public input received during the plan update.500 Mitigation projects may be structural or non-structural and may address policy, planning, education, operational preparedness, or infrastructure needs. This flexible approach allows mitigation actions to be scaled to available authority, funding, and implementation capacity.501 499 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. 500 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process, Stakeholder Engagement, and Capability Assessment. 501 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook and Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-11 Page 322 of 1055 10.3.3 Project Evaluation and Prioritization Mitigation projects are evaluated and prioritized using qualitative criteria consistent with FEMA guidance. These criteria are intended to support informed decision-making and transparent prioritization rather than to guarantee project funding or implementation.502 Projects were prioritized using a qualitative evaluation process, with emphasis on life safety, protection of critical facilities, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and multi-hazard benefits. Evaluation and prioritization considerations include:  Potential to reduce risk to life safety and property;  Protection of critical facilities, lifelines, and infrastructure;  Feasibility within existing legal, regulatory, and administrative authority;  Relative cost, potential funding eligibility, and implementation complexity; and  Ability to address multiple hazards or provide co-benefits across hazard types.503 Project prioritization guides funding strategies and implementation sequencing. Inclusion of an action in the MAP does not represent a commitment to fund or implement all actions but rather reflects a planning-level assessment of relative priority and feasibility.504 10.3.4 Funding Sources As described in the 2021 FNSB MJ-HMP, funding for mitigation activities relies on a combination of local, state, federal, and partner resources rather than on a single 502 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook and Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance. 503 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook and Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process, Stakeholder Engagement, and Capability Assessment. 504 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook and Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-12 Page 323 of 1055 dedicated funding source. This funding framework remains applicable during the current update cycle.505 Mitigation projects may be supported through a mix of the following sources:  FEMA HMA programs, including competitive grant opportunities;  State funding programs, where available and applicable;  Local capital and operating budgets, particularly where mitigation can be incorporated into planned projects; and  Partner agency contributions, including utilities and other infrastructure owners that integrate mitigation into system upgrades.506 Availability of funding and the ability to meet matching requirements remain the primary factors affecting the timing and feasibility of mitigation project implementation. These constraints reinforce the importance of prioritization and incremental implementation over the life of the plan.507 10.3.5 Implementation and Monitoring Mitigation projects are implemented by the agency or jurisdiction identified in the MAP once funding is secured and required approvals are obtained. The FNSB Emergency Management function coordinates grant management, compliance, and reporting for mitigation projects funded through state or federal programs.508 Project status is reviewed during annual plan maintenance and updated as needed to reflect implementation progress, funding changes, revised priorities, or evolving 505 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. 506 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook and Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance. 507 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process, Capability Assessment, and Plan Maintenance. 508 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process, Capability Assessment, and Plan Maintenance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-13 Page 324 of 1055 conditions. This review process supports transparency, accountability, and adaptive management of mitigation actions.509 10.3.6 Continuous Process Mitigation project identification, prioritization, and funding are continuous and adaptive processes. New mitigation actions may be proposed, and existing priorities adjusted, during plan maintenance activities in accordance with FEMA guidance and documented changes in risk, capability, or opportunity.510 This approach allows the MAP to remain responsive to emerging hazards, lessons learned from incidents, and changes in funding or partnership opportunities while maintaining consistency with the overall mitigation strategy.511 The continuous process for mitigation project identification, prioritization, funding, and implementation is summarized in Table 10-4. Table 10-4: Mitigation Project and Funding Process Step Section Process Description Identification 10.3.2 Risk assessment, stakeholder input, incident lessons learned, and capital planning Evaluation 10.3.3 Qualitative screening for feasibility, costs, hazard coverage, and authority Prioritization 10.3.3 Life safety, critical services, funding eligibility, multi-hazard benefit Funding 10.3.4 FEMA mitigation program, state grants, local funds, partner support Implementation 10.3.5 Implemented by the responsible agency, once funding is secured Monitoring 10.3.5 Reviewed during annual plan maintenance 509 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process, Capability Assessment, and Plan Maintenance. 510 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook and Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process, Capability Assessment, and Plan Maintenance. 511 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook and Hazard Mitigation Assistance Guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-14 Page 325 of 1055 Step Section Process Description Adjustment 10.3.6 Actions may be added or reprioritized during plan maintenance Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2026 Update. As shown in Table 10-4, mitigation planning and implementation follow a continuous cycle that integrates risk assessment, stakeholder input, project evaluation, funding, and ongoing monitoring. This process ensures that mitigation actions remain responsive to changing conditions, funding opportunities, and lessons learned from hazard events. This adaptive approach supports long-term plan maintenance and ensures that the MAP remains current and aligned with evolving risks and capabilities. 10.4 2021 MJ-HMP Implementation Progress 10.4.1 Purpose This section documents the implementation progress of mitigation actions identified in the 2021 FNSB MJ-HMP. The purpose of this section is to identify mitigation actions that have been completed, are ongoing, have been modified, or have been deferred since plan adoption, and to demonstrate how implementation experience informed the current plan update and the revised MAP.512 10.4.2 Summary of Progress Since 2021 Since the adoption of the 2021 MJ-HMP, the FNSB, the City of Fairbanks, and the City of North Pole have continued to advance mitigation activities within existing legal authority, staffing capacity, and fiscal constraints. Progress reflects the incremental implementation approach anticipated in the 2021 MJ-HMP and reinforced through stakeholder input during the 2026 update.513 Since the 2021 plan, mitigation efforts have focused on wildfire risk reduction, infrastructure resilience, and improved emergency preparedness. Actions have been 512 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. 513 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-15 Page 326 of 1055 completed, advanced, or refined to reflect implementation experience, feasibility considerations, and funding availability. Primary areas of mitigation progress include the following:  Planning and Plan Integration: Mitigation priorities identified in the 2021 MJ-HMP have been carried forward and integrated into updates of related plans, including the CEMP, CWPPs, and other hazard-specific and operational planning efforts. This integration has helped ensure consistency across planning documents and alignment between mitigation, preparedness, and response activities.514  Wildfire Risk Reduction: Continued coordination with fire service areas, state and federal partners, and other stakeholders supported wildfire-related mitigation activities, including fuels management planning, defensible space promotion, wildfire response coordination, and public education and outreach. While large- scale mitigation projects remain dependent on funding availability, ongoing planning and coordination efforts have strengthened readiness for wildfire and urban conflagration risks.515  Emergency Preparedness and Continuity: Mitigation actions related to emergency communications, backup power, sheltering, and preparedness for extended-duration incidents were addressed through planning updates, equipment improvements, training, exercises, and operational practices. These efforts enhanced continuity of operations and community resilience during prolonged or overlapping emergency events.516  Infrastructure and Critical Facilities: Selected mitigation measures affecting critical facilities, utilities, and transportation infrastructure were implemented through capital projects, routine maintenance programs, or grant-funded efforts where jurisdictional authority and funding allowed. These actions focused on risk 514 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Updates and Interagency Coordination Records. 515 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Updates and Interagency Coordination Records. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process and Capability Assessment. 516 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Planning Process and Capability Assessment. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-16 Page 327 of 1055 reduction, system reliability, and protection of essential services rather than on comprehensive regulatory mitigation.517 Implementation experience since 2021 has informed the refinement of mitigation priorities, timelines, and approaches, as reflected in the updated MAP, reinforcing the importance of feasibility, coordination, and incremental progress.518 Progress in implementing mitigation actions since the 2021 plan is summarized in Table 10-5. Table 10-5: Summary of Mitigation Implementation Progress Since 2021 Mitigation Area Implementation General Description of Progress Status Mitigation priorities from the 2021 MJ-HMP Planning and Plan were carried forward and incorporated into Ongoing Integration updates of the CEMP, CWPPs, and related planning efforts. Coordination with fire service areas and partner agencies supported fuels planning, Wildfire Risk Ongoing defensible space education, wildfire response Reduction planning, and outreach, subject to funding and capacity. Planning updates, training, exercises, and Emergency operational practices addressed Preparedness and Ongoing communications, backup power, sheltering, Continuity and extended-duration incident preparedness. Mitigation measures affecting utilities, Infrastructure facilities, and transportation infrastructure Selectively and Critical were implemented through capital projects, Implemented Facilities maintenance, or grant-funded efforts where feasible. 517 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. 518 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-17 Page 328 of 1055 Mitigation Area Implementation General Description of Progress Status Actions were implemented incrementally, Mitigation Action with experience-informed updates to Plan Ongoing priorities, timelines, and feasibility Implementation assumptions in the current plan update. Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2026 Update; internal training, planning, and outreach records. As shown in Table 10-5, mitigation implementation since 2021 has been ongoing and incremental, with progress achieved through planning integration, coordination, and targeted investments in preparedness and infrastructure resilience. While not all actions have been fully implemented, continued advancement reflects the Borough’s capacity- based approach and reliance on partnerships, available funding, and operational opportunities. These accomplishments and lessons learned have informed the refinement of mitigation actions, priorities, and timelines in the updated MAP. 10.4.3 Status of 2021 Mitigation Actions Implementation status of mitigation actions identified in the 2021 FNSB MJ-HMP generally falls into the following categories, based on stakeholder input, internal records, and implementation experience during the current update cycle.519  Completed or Ongoing Actions: Mitigation actions focused on planning, coordination, training, exercises, and public education showed the most consistent progress. These actions typically aligned with existing programs and operational responsibilities and required limited additional capital investment or regulatory authority. Examples include plan integration, wildfire coordination, preparedness outreach, and continuity planning.520  Partially Implemented or Adjusted Actions: Some mitigation actions were implemented in part or modified in scope, sequencing, or timeline to reflect updated risk information, operational experience during incidents, staffing 519 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. 520 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-18 Page 329 of 1055 capacity, or funding availability. Adjustments were made to maintain feasibility while preserving the intent of the original mitigation objectives.521  Deferred or Not Implemented Actions: Mitigation actions requiring significant capital investment, expanded regulatory authority, or sustained external funding were deferred or not implemented during this planning cycle. Stakeholders reaffirmed that grant dependency, match requirements, competitive funding cycles, and competing operational priorities remain primary constraints affecting the implementation of these actions.522 10.4.4 Lessons Learned Implementation experience since the adoption of the 2021 MJ-HMP reinforced several key lessons relevant to mitigation planning and execution within the FNSB. These lessons informed refinements made during the current plan update and the development of the revised MAP.523 Key lessons learned include:  Mitigation actions are most effective when integrated into existing plans, programs, and capital improvement processes, rather than pursued as stand-alone initiatives.  Multi-hazard mitigation actions provide greater long-term benefit, flexibility, and efficiency than single-hazard solutions, particularly under constrained funding and staffing conditions.  Clear identification of responsible agencies, partners, and realistic timelines improves implementation success and accountability. 521 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. 522 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Capability Assessment and Fiscal Constraints Summary, 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. 523 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-19 Page 330 of 1055  Continued reliance on coordination, partnerships, and voluntary participation is necessary due to limited land-use and regulatory authority in unincorporated areas of the Borough.524 These lessons directly informed updates to mitigation priorities, implementation approaches, and feasibility assumptions reflected in the current plan update.525 10.4.5 Relationship to the Updated Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) The updated MAP builds directly on the foundation established in the 2021 FNSB MJ-HMP. Mitigation actions identified in the 2021 MJ-HMP were reviewed during this update to assess continued relevance, feasibility, and alignment with current conditions, capabilities, and stakeholder priorities.526 Actions that remain applicable were updated or refined to reflect changes in risk information, operational experience, funding considerations, and jurisdictional authority. Mitigation actions that were completed, determined to be no longer applicable, or duplicative of other efforts were removed or consolidated. New mitigation actions were added where gaps, emerging risks, or opportunities were identified through the capability assessment, stakeholder input, or lessons learned since 2021.527 Implementation experience since the adoption of the 2021 MJ-HMP demonstrates a continued commitment to hazard mitigation across participating jurisdictions and directly informed the structure, prioritization, and timelines of actions included in the updated 524 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Capability Assessment and Fiscal Constraints Summary, 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. 525 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. 526 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Capability Assessment and Mitigation Strategy. 527 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Capability Assessment and Mitigation Strategy. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-20 Page 331 of 1055 MAP. This approach ensures continuity between planning cycles while maintaining flexibility to address evolving risks and constraints.528 The relationship between implementation progress since the 2021 plan and the updated Mitigation Action Plan is summarized in Table 10-6. Table 10-6: 2021 MJ-HMP Implementation Progress Categories Section Category Description Planning, coordination, training, and public 10.4.3 Completed / Ongoing education actions are implemented through existing programs Actions refined or adjusted due to funding 10.4.3 Partially Implemented availability, scope, or operational considerations Capital-intensive or regulatory-dependent Deferred / Not 10.4.3 actions are not feasible during this current Implemented planning cycle Emphasis on plan integration, multi-hazard 10.4.4 Lessons Learned focus, realistic timelines, and partnerships Actions updated, consolidated, or added to 10.4.5 MAP Relationship reflect current conditions and priorities Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2026 Update. As shown in Table 10-6, mitigation actions from the 2021 plan were carried forward, refined, or removed based on implementation progress, feasibility, and relevance to current conditions. This process ensures that the updated MAP reflects both completed efforts and remaining priorities while incorporating lessons learned and new opportunities for risk reduction. This approach demonstrates continuity between planning cycles and ensures that mitigation actions remain aligned with current risks, capabilities, and stakeholder priorities. 10.5 MJ-HMP Goals 10.5.1 Purpose This section updates the mitigation goals established in the 2021 FNSB MJ-HMP. The overall intent, structure, and scope of the 2021 goals remain unchanged. Revisions made during this update clarify goal statements, confirm continued applicability, and ensure 528 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Emergency Operations Training, Exercises, and Community Outreach Records, 2021–2026. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Capability Assessment and Mitigation Strategy. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-21 Page 332 of 1055 alignment with stakeholder input, implementation experience, and FEMA mitigation planning requirements.529 Mitigation goals provide the policy foundation for the MAP and guide prioritization of mitigation projects and activities throughout the life of the plan. The goals are intentionally broad to allow flexibility in implementation while maintaining focus on long-term risk reduction.530 10.5.2 Relationship to Previous Plans The mitigation goals build upon those established in the 2014 and 2021 MJ-HMPs. Implementation experience documented in prior sections confirms that these goals remain appropriate, relevant, and achievable within existing legal, fiscal, and operational constraints.531 Stakeholder input collected during the 2026 plan update process supported retaining the existing mitigation goals with minor clarification, rather than introducing new or expanded goal areas. This feedback reflects a shared understanding that sustained progress is best achieved through refinement and continuity rather than frequent restructuring of mitigation objectives.532 10.5.3 Updated Mitigation Goals The following mitigation goals reaffirm the goals established in the 2021 MJ-HMP and apply to all participating jurisdictions. These goals reflect continuity across planning cycles 529 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement and Planning Process. 530 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. 531 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2021–2026 Mitigation Implementation Progress Summary. 532 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement and Planning Process. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-22 Page 333 of 1055 and incorporate stakeholder feedback and implementation experience without expanding scope or authority.533 Goal 1: Protect Life and Reduce Risk to Public Safety Reduce the risk of injury, loss of life, and disruption to emergency response capabilities from natural hazards. This goal emphasizes:  Emergency access and egress;  Protection of first responders and emergency operations facilities; and  Mitigation actions that support safe evacuation, sheltering, and response during hazard events, including wildfire and urban conflagration.534 Goal 2: Reduce Damage to Property, Infrastructure, and Critical Facilities Minimize damage to public and private property, utilities, and critical infrastructure from natural hazards, including risks associated with flood control infrastructure and high- hazard-potential dam-related systems, through cost-effective and feasible mitigation measures. This goal supports:  Protection of essential services and lifelines;  Integration of mitigation into capital improvement planning and infrastructure investments; and 533 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement and Planning Process. 534 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2021–2026 Mitigation Implementation Progress and Capability Assessment. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-23 Page 334 of 1055  Reduction of long-term recovery costs and service disruptions.535 Goal 3: Improve Community Resilience and Continuity of Operations Enhance the community's ability to withstand, respond to, and recover from hazard events, including prolonged or cascading incidents. This goal reflects stakeholder emphasis on:  Backup power, communications, and utility redundancy;  Continuity of government and essential services; and  Planning for extended-duration emergencies that strain local capacity.536 Goal 4: Promote Hazard-Aware Planning and Development Encourage consideration of natural hazards in planning, development, and land-use decisions where authority exists. This goal acknowledges:  Limited regulatory authority in unincorporated areas of the Borough;  The role of subdivision review, floodplain management, municipal building, and fire codes; and  The importance of voluntary mitigation and informed decision-making by property owners and developers.537 535 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2021–2026 Mitigation Implementation Progress and Capability Assessment. 536 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement and Planning Process. 537 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Legal and Regulatory Capability Assessment (Titles 15, 17, and 18). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-24 Page 335 of 1055 Goal 5: Increase Public Awareness and Support for Mitigation Improve public understanding of local hazards and mitigation options to encourage voluntary risk reduction. This goal supports:  Public education and outreach related to hazards and preparedness;  Collaboration with fire service areas, non-governmental organizations, and partner agencies; and  Increased participation in hazard mitigation programs and preparedness activities.538 Goal 6: Strengthen Interagency Coordination and Partnerships Enhance coordination among jurisdictions, service areas, utilities, agencies, and organizations involved in hazard mitigation. This goal reflects:  Stakeholder recognition that mitigation success depends on coordination and partnerships, not regulation alone; and  The need to align mitigation efforts across plans, programs, funding sources, and jurisdictions to maximize effectiveness.539 10.5.4 Implementation of Goals The mitigation goals are implemented through the MAP, which identifies specific mitigation actions, responsible agencies or jurisdictions, general implementation timeframes, and potential funding sources. Progress toward achieving these goals is 538 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement and Planning Process. 539 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement and Planning Process. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Interagency Coordination and Partnership Summary, 2021–2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-25 Page 336 of 1055 monitored through the plan maintenance process and documented during annual reviews and future plan updates.540 The mitigation goals are intended to remain stable over the life of the plan, providing consistent policy guidance while allowing mitigation actions and priorities to adapt to changing conditions, funding opportunities, and implementation experience. This approach supports continuity across planning cycles while maintaining flexibility in execution.541 The MAP, presented in Chapter 11, translates these goals and strategies into specific, actionable mitigation measures. The mitigation goals and their primary areas of focus are summarized in Table 10-7. Table 10-7: MJ-HMP Goals and Focus Areas Goal No. Goal Title Primary Focus Area Protect Life and Public Emergency access and egress, first Goal 1 Safety responders, evacuation, and sheltering Reduce Damage to Critical facilities, utilities, and cost-effective Goal 2 Property and mitigation Infrastructure Improve Infrastructure Backup power, communications, and Goal 3 Resilience and Continuity extended-duration incidents Promote Hazard-Aware Floodplain management, subdivision review, Goal 4 Planning and voluntary mitigation Education, outreach, NGOs, and fire service Goal 5 Increase Public Awareness partnerships Interagency alignment, shared planning, and Goal 6 Strengthen Coordination funding Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and 2026 Update. As shown in Table 10-7, the mitigation goals are focused on life safety, protection of critical infrastructure, resilience of essential services, hazard-aware planning, public awareness, and interagency coordination. These goals provide the foundation for 540 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Mitigation Action Plan and Plan Maintenance Process, 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. 541 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Mitigation Strategy and Goal Implementation Guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-26 Page 337 of 1055 selecting and prioritizing mitigation actions in the MAP. Together, these goals ensure that mitigation actions address the Borough’s most significant risks while supporting coordinated and effective implementation across jurisdictions. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 10-27 Page 338 of 1055 11. Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) 11.1 Purpose The MAP identifies specific actions intended to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards and to support the mitigation goals outlined in Section 10.5 of this Plan. This section updates the MAP framework established in the 2021 FNSB MJ-HMP and reflects refinements based on implementation experience, capability assessment findings, and stakeholder input obtained during this plan update.542 Mitigation actions and prioritization were informed by community and stakeholder input, including survey feedback on mitigation preferences, implementation barriers, and resource needs (Appendix C). The MAP remains the primary implementation tool for translating mitigation goals into actionable projects and initiatives over the life of the plan.543 11.2 Relationship to the 2021 MJ-HMP The overall structure, function, and intent of the MAP are consistent with the 2021 MJ- HMP. Many mitigation actions identified in the 2021 MJ-HMP remain relevant and were carried forward, revised, consolidated, or re-prioritized during this update based on the following considerations:  Progress made since plan adoption;  Updated hazard risk and vulnerability information;  Feasibility within existing legal authority, staffing capacity, and fiscal constraints; and  Stakeholder input gathered during the update process.544 542 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Strategy. 543 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. 544 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Strategy. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2021–2026 Mitigation Implementation Progress Summary. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-1 Page 339 of 1055 Mitigation actions that were completed, determined to be no longer applicable, or duplicative of other efforts were removed or consolidated, while new or modified actions were added where gaps, emerging risks, or implementation opportunities were identified.545 11.3 Development of the MAP Mitigation actions included in the updated MAP were developed and refined through a multi-source process that included:  Review of mitigation actions from the 2014 and 2021 MJ-HMPs;  Findings from hazard risk and vulnerability assessments;  Input from Borough and municipal departments, fire service areas, utilities, partner agencies, and other stakeholders;  Lessons learned from recent hazard events, emergency activations, training, and exercises; and  Consideration of funding eligibility, match requirements, and implementation feasibility.546 The MAP emphasizes practical and attainable actions that can be advanced incrementally through existing programs, partnerships, and funding opportunities, consistent with the mitigation strategy and capability assessment described in Chapter 10.547 Severe weather mitigation actions were refined to address emerging risks associated with winter rain events, including prolonged icing, infrastructure impacts, and cascading 545 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2021–2026 Mitigation Implementation Progress Summary. 546 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Strategy. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Mitigation Action Plan Development Guidance. 547 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Stakeholder Engagement, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Strategy. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Mitigation Action Plan Development Guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-2 Page 340 of 1055 effects on transportation and utility systems described in Chapter 6, as well as stakeholder and community input documented in Appendix C. 11.4 Organization of the MAP The MAP is organized in table format to provide a clear, consistent framework for identifying and tracking mitigation actions across participating jurisdictions. The MAP is designed to support implementation, coordination, and periodic review while remaining flexible to changing conditions, funding availability, and capacity.548 11.4.1 MAP Methodology / Approach Paragraph The mitigation actions included in this MAP were developed through an integrated planning approach that combines hazard risk assessment, capability assessment, and stakeholder input. Actions are aligned with the identified hazards, vulnerabilities, and critical infrastructure dependencies described in Chapters 4 through 9, and reflect existing regulatory authority, technical capacity, and available resources within participating jurisdictions. The planning team prioritized actions that provide multi-hazard benefits, address life safety and continuity of essential services, and support coordination across agencies and infrastructure partners. This approach ensures that mitigation actions are actionable, achievable, and consistent with FEMA guidance for risk-based mitigation planning. Mitigation actions included in Tables 11-1 through 11-7 were developed collaboratively by participating jurisdictions, including the FNSB, the City of Fairbanks, and the City of North Pole. Each jurisdiction is represented within the MAP through jurisdiction-specific responsibilities, partnerships, and implementation roles identified for each action. Across the MAP, one or more actions address each of the hazards identified in the risk assessment for all participating jurisdictions. Actions may be implemented independently by individual jurisdictions or jointly through multi-jurisdictional coordination, depending on the nature and scale of the mitigation measure. For each mitigation action, the MAP identifies, as applicable:  A mitigation action description; 548 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy and Action Plan Framework. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-3 Page 341 of 1055  The hazard(s) addressed;  Primary and supporting agencies or jurisdictions;  A general implementation timeframe (short-, medium-, or long-term);  Potential funding sources, where applicable; and  Status or notes relevant to implementation or prioritization.549 Implementation timeframes are intended as general planning guidance only and do not represent fixed schedules or funding commitments. Actions are advanced incrementally as authority, capacity, and funding allow.550 11.4.2 MAP Notes (Applies to Tables 11-1 through 11-7) The mitigation actions identified for each hazard category are presented in Tables 11-1 through 11-7. Responsible agencies listed in Tables 11-1 through 11-7 identify the jurisdiction(s) leading or supporting implementation of each action, ensuring that each participating jurisdiction, the FNSB, City of Fairbanks, and City of North Pole, is clearly associated with one or more mitigation actions across all hazard categories. The mitigation actions presented are planning-level recommendations developed through the risk assessment, capability assessment, and stakeholder input process described in this plan. Timeframes represent general implementation horizons and do not constitute funding commitments. Implementation of actions depends on available funding, jurisdictional authority, partner coordination, and project-specific feasibility. Estimated cost and resource needs are provided as planning-level indicators (Low, Medium, High) and reflect relative order-of-magnitude effort rather than project-specific cost estimates. Actions are designed to support multi-hazard risk reduction, improve the resilience of critical infrastructure and lifelines, and address cascading impacts affecting transportation, utilities, and essential services. Measurable completion criteria are provided to support annual progress tracking, plan maintenance, and updates to future mitigation planning. 549 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy and Action Plan Framework. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Mitigation Action Plan Organization and Documentation Guidance. 550 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy and Action Plan Framework. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-4 Page 342 of 1055 In the FNSB, transportation systems serve as a critical dependency for multiple lifelines, including fuel, food, medical supply delivery, utilities, and emergency response. Disruptions to key corridors may result in cascading impacts across these systems, which are reflected in the mitigation actions identified in this plan. For planning and tracking purposes, the following timeframes are used consistently throughout the MAP:  Short Term: 1–3 years  Medium Term: 3–5 years  Long Term: 5+ years  Ongoing: Continuous or recurring activity FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-5 Page 343 of 1055 Table 11-1: Multi-Hazard Mitigation Actions Estimated Potential Measurable Hazard(s) Supporting Stakeholder Input ID Mitigation Action Lead Agency Timeframe Priority Implementation Steps Cost / Funding Completion Status Addressed Agencies / Rationale Resources Sources Criteria Hazard screening FNSB Integrate hazard 1) Incorporate hazard risk data process adopted; % Emergency Stakeholders mitigation into CIP review process Local CIP of CIP projects FNSB Operations; Medium (staff identified aligning considerations into 2) Screen capital projects for budgets; incorporating MH 1 All Community City of Ongoing High time, planning Ongoing mitigation with capital improvement hazard exposure FEMA BRIC; mitigation Planning Fairbanks; City integration) planned investments planning and facility 3) Document mitigation HMGP considerations of North Pole; to improve feasibility upgrades measures in project design annually Utilities documented Utilities 1) Identify critical facilities FNSB (GVEA, Golden lacking redundancy Inventory of facilities Improve redundancy for FEMA BRIC; Stakeholders Emergency Heart 2) Prioritize based on lifeline completed; critical services (power, HMGP; identified the need to Operations; City Utilities); Medium dependency High (capital number/percent of MH 2 communications, water, All High DHS&EM; Ongoing support extended of Fairbanks; Healthcare Term 3) Develop and implement projects) priority facilities with heat) at essential Utility capital duration and City of North systems; backup redundant systems facilities programs cascading incidents Pole DOT&PF power/heating/communications installed (coordination) solutions Support the Hospitals 1) Develop/update Mass Plan adopted; development and Stakeholders (FMH); Alaska Casualty Plan ASPR; DHS resource inventory maintenance of mass FNSB Medium identified the need to DHSS; Law Medium 2) Identify resource and preparedness completed; at least In MH 3 casualty and fatality All Emergency High (planning + improve preparedness Enforcement; Term capacity gaps grants; one exercise Progress management planning Operations equipment) for large-scale EMS; ARC; 3) Conduct training and EMPG conducted every 2 and coordination casualty incidents NGOs exercises years capabilities Coordinate with food 1) Identify supply chain Local grocers; EMPG; Contingency suppliers, transportation dependencies Stakeholders noted DOT&PF; Private distribution plan partners, and FNSB 2) Develop contingency Medium food availability and Transportation Medium sector documented; partner In MH 4 community All Emergency High distribution plans (coordination distribution providers; Term partnerships; coordination Progress organizations to Operations 3) Coordinate with private- effort) vulnerabilities during NGOs; NAR- USDA agreements or improve food sector partners for emergency extended incidents VOAD programs protocols established distribution resilience operations Support planning, Alaska DEC; 1) Identify suitable clean air Identified and EPA grants; Stakeholders guidance, and Schools; shelter locations Medium mapped clean air Wildfire; FNSB FEMA BRIC; identified smoke coordination for clean Healthcare Medium 2) Develop public guidance (facility facilities; public In MH 5 Severe Emergency Medium State public impacts and clean air air or filtered spaces providers; Term and protocols upgrades + guidance published; Progress Weather Operations health access as a recurring during smoke and air Community 3) Integrate into sheltering and outreach) integration into funding life-safety concern quality events organizations response plans response plans 1) Update GIS-based critical Updated dataset FNSB Utilities; Stakeholders facility inventory completed; Emergency Healthcare identified support Update vulnerability 2) Conduct vulnerability Medium FEMA Risk vulnerability Operations; City systems; FNSB prioritization, MH 6 data for critical facilities All Short Term High assessment (analysis/GIS MAP; BRIC; assessment Ongoing of Fairbanks; Community coordination, and and lifelines 3) Integrate into hazard work) EMPG documented; used in City of North Planning; mitigation of grant mitigation and response prioritization and Pole State agencies applications planning grant applications FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-6 Page 344 of 1055 Estimated Potential Measurable Hazard(s) Supporting Stakeholder Input ID Mitigation Action Lead Agency Timeframe Priority Implementation Steps Cost / Funding Completion Status Addressed Agencies / Rationale Resources Sources Criteria FNSB Emergency 1) Align messaging across Joint outreach Stakeholders Operations/PIO; agencies strategy developed; Coordinate mitigation FNSB; DFFP; EMPG; identified it enhances City of 2) Develop shared outreach Low (staff number of MH 7 messaging and outreach All DOT&PF; Ongoing Medium agency Ongoing voluntary mitigation, Fairbanks materials coordination) coordinated outreach across agencies NWS; NGOs budgets given limited EM/PIO; City of 3) Conduct joint campaigns efforts conducted regulatory authority North Pole and events annually EM/PIO Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; stakeholder input; and 2026 Plan Update analyses. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-7 Page 345 of 1055 Table 11-2: Wildfire Mitigation Actions (Wildland Fire and Urban Conflagration (Structure-to-Structure)) Estimated Potential Measurable Hazard(s) Supporting Stakeholder Input ID Mitigation Action Lead Agency Timeframe Priority Implementation Steps Cost / Funding Completion Status Addressed Agencies / Rationale Resources Sources Criteria FNSB Strong stakeholder Acres treated Emergency 1) Prioritize CWPP-identified consensus that Implement priority fuel USFS grants; annually; % of Alaska Division Operations; treatment areas targeted fuel reduction projects High (project- FEMA BRIC; priority CWPP of Forestry & Fire Service Medium 2) Conduct fuels reduction reduction remains WF 1 identified in the Wildland Fire High based, varies HMGP; State projects completed; Ongoing Fire Protection Areas (FSAs); Term (mechanical, prescribed fire) one of the most Community Wildfire by acreage) forestry maintenance cycle (DFFP) Federal land 3) Maintain and monitor effective risk Protection Plan (CWPP) programs established for managers; treated areas over time reduction measures treated areas Local partners near communities FNSB 1) Identify high-risk areas Community Identified priority Stakeholders FSAs; with limited access Planning (land areas mapped; identified evacuation Emergency 2) Conduct route Improve access and use); DOT&PF FHWA; FEMA number of access safety, responder Operations; vulnerability and constraint High (capital egress in wildfire-prone Wildland (state BRIC; State improvement access, and limited Developers; assessments improvements, In WF 2 areas, including Fire; Urban infrastructure); Long Term High capital projects initiated or route redundancy as Federal 3) Incorporate access planning + Progress evacuation routes and Conflagration Cities of budgets; completed; critical constraints; partners improvements into construction) responder access Fairbanks & Local CIP integration into aligns with (where subdivision standards, North Pole subdivision standards transportation lifeline applicable) capital projects, and corridor (city and transport plans dependency concerns planning infrastructure) FNSB Emergency Operations; 1) Conduct Firewise Number of outreach Stakeholders FSAs; City of outreach and home USFS; State events conducted identified limited Support defensible Fairbanks FD; assessments Firewise annually; number of Wildland Medium regulatory authority space education and City of North 2) Provide guidance and programs; properties assessed; WF 3 Fire; Urban DFFP Ongoing High (education, Ongoing and importance of voluntary compliance by Pole FD; materials to property owners EMPG; increase in Conflagration outreach) voluntary action in property owners NGOs; 3) Support community-level Insurance defensible space reducing structure-to- Community mitigation efforts (Firewise partnerships adoption structure fire spread groups; designation, where feasible) participation Insurance partners 1) Inventory and map FSAs; DFFP; existing water sources and Stakeholders Enhance wildfire water Mapped inventory Utilities; draft points identified significant supply planning, FEMA BRIC; completed; number DOT&PF 2) Identify gaps along gaps in suppression mapping, and access, Wildland FNSB High HMGP; State of new or improved (corridor Medium transportation corridors and In water availability, WF 4 including draft points, Fire; Urban Emergency High (infrastructure grants; Local water access points; coordination); Term remote areas Progress especially outside storage options, Conflagration Operations + planning) CIP; Utility priority gaps Landowners; 3) Develop and implement FSAs and along corridors, and non-FSA partnerships addressed in high- Federal solutions (storage tanks, dry critical transportation areas risk areas agencies hydrants, access corridors improvements) Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; stakeholder input; and 2026 Plan Update analyses. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-8 Page 346 of 1055 Table 11-3: Severe Weather Mitigation Actions Estimated Potential Measurable Hazard(s) Supporting Stakeholder Input ID Mitigation Action Lead Agency Timeframe Priority Implementation Steps Cost / Funding Completion Status Addressed Agencies / Rationale Resources Sources Criteria 1) Inventory backup power capability at critical Stakeholders facilities identified power 2) Identify gaps and Inventory outages consistently Severe FNSB FEMA BRIC; prioritize based on lifeline completed; priority identified as a major Evaluate and improve Weather Emergency HMGP; Utilities (GVEA); dependency (heat, High facilities identified; cascading impact of backup power (including Operations; City DHS&EM; In SW 1 Healthcare facilities; Short Term High medical, water), including (equipment + % of priority severe weather capacity at critical Winter Rain of Fairbanks; Utility capital Progress Schools facilities vulnerable to installation) facilities with events, including facilities / Freezing City of North programs; extended outages caused functional backup outages associated Rain) Pole Local CIP by winter rain events power systems with winter rain and 3) Develop and implement ice loading on upgrades (generators, fuel infrastructure supply, redundancy) 1) Identify critical communication and IT Stakeholders systems vulnerable to FNSB, City of DHS Critical systems identified support for extreme cold and icing Harden Severe Fairbanks, City cybersecurity identified; number continuity of Utilities; conditions associated with communications and Weather of North Pole Medium grants; of systems operations during Telecommunications winter rain events information (including Information Medium (system FEMA BRIC; hardened; In prolonged outages, SW 2 providers; State High 2) Implement hardening technology systems Winter Rain Technology; Term upgrades, EMPG; successful continuity Progress including those agencies; measures (backup power, against extreme cold / Freezing FNSB redundancy) Agency demonstrated caused by winter rain Healthcare systems environmental controls, and severe storms Rain) Emergency capital during outages or events and redundancy) Operations budgets exercises associated 3) Test system resilience infrastructure failures through exercises and real- world operations 1) Develop consistent cold- weather and winter rain Stakeholders preparedness messaging Number of identified the (travel hazards, outage coordinated importance of FNSB Severe preparedness, supply EMPG; outreach campaigns community Expand public Emergency Weather National Weather disruptions) Agency annually; preparedness and messaging on cold Operations/PIO; Low (staff (including Service (NWS); 2) Coordinate messaging budgets; consistency of self-sufficiency SW 3 weather and winter City of Ongoing Medium time, outreach Ongoing Winter Rain DOT&PF; Schools; across agencies NWS messaging across during extended rain preparedness and Fairbanks PIO; materials) / Freezing NGOs (transportation, utilities, partnership agencies; increased severe weather self-sufficiency City of North Rain) NWS) support public engagement events, including Pole PIO 3) Conduct seasonal metrics where prolonged icing and outreach campaigns and available disruptions caused by incident-driven winter rain communication FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-9 Page 347 of 1055 Estimated Potential Measurable Hazard(s) Supporting Stakeholder Input ID Mitigation Action Lead Agency Timeframe Priority Implementation Steps Cost / Funding Completion Status Addressed Agencies / Rationale Resources Sources Criteria Stakeholders 1) Assess road identified hazardous FNSB RSA; vulnerabilities to prolonged Increased reliability Severe State DOT road conditions and DOT&PF; City icing of priority routes Improve the Weather Medium programs; prolonged icing as a of Fairbanks FNSB Emergency 2) Evaluate and improve during winter transportation (including Medium (operations + FEMA BRIC; major impact of SW 4 Public Works; Operations, High de-icing and sanding weather events; Proposed system's resilience to Winter Rain Term materials) HMGP; Local winter rain events City of North Schools, NWS strategies reduced closures winter rain events / Freezing CIP affecting safety, Pole Public 3) Prioritize response and response delays Rain) emergency response, Works routes for emergency and supply access access and critical services Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; stakeholder input; and 2026 Plan Update analyses. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-10 Page 348 of 1055 Table 11-4: Flood Mitigation Actions Potential Measurable Hazard(s) Supporting Estimated Cost / Stakeholder Input ID Mitigation Action Lead Agency Timeframe Priority Implementation Steps Funding Completion Status Addressed Agencies Resources / Rationale Sources Criteria 1) Maintain compliance with Stakeholders City of NFIP minimum standards NFIP participation identified a FEMA Continue National Flood FNSB Fairbanks; 2) Update and adopt maintained; no foundational CAP-SSSE; Insurance Program Community City of North revised FIRMs and Flood major compliance mitigation program Medium (staff time, Local FL 1 (NFIP) participation and Flooding Planning Pole; FEMA Ongoing High Insurance Studies (FIS) violations; updated Ongoing that supports flood administration) budgets; floodplain (Floodplain Region 10; 3) Conduct permitting, FIRMs adopted; risk reduction, CTP administration Administrator) State inspections, and annual reporting regulatory program DHS&EM enforcement for floodplain completed compliance, and development grant eligibility FNSB 1) Update GIS-based Updated inventory Stakeholders Community inventory of critical facilities completed; identified support for Identify and prioritize Planning; City in flood hazard areas prioritized list FNSB FEMA FMA; mitigation flood-prone critical of Fairbanks; Medium 2) Conduct vulnerability and Medium (analysis developed; In FL 2 Flooding Emergency High BRIC; Risk prioritization and facilities and City of North Term risk assessments and planning) integration into Progress Operations MAP; EMPG eligibility for flood- infrastructure Pole; Utilities; 3) Prioritize facilities for mitigation planning related grant State mitigation actions and and grant programs agencies funding applications FNSB Emergency 1) Provide flood hazard and Number of outreach Operations; FEMA Stakeholders insurance information at efforts annually; City of outreach identified maintain permitting and outreach increased public Fairbanks; support; emphasis on Promote flood FNSB events engagement; City of North Low CRS voluntary mitigation FL 3 insurance coverage and Flooding Community Ongoing Medium 2) Conduct public education continued Ongoing Pole; (education/outreach) incentives (if and public awareness flood hazard awareness Planning campaigns dissemination of Insurance applicable); in areas without 3) Coordinate messaging flood risk partners; Local regulatory with NFIP and CRS information at FEMA budgets requirements objectives (if pursued) permit stage outreach programs 1) Identify flood-prone Number of City of infrastructure systems and coordinated projects Stakeholders Fairbanks; drainage constraints FEMA BRIC; identified and identified multi- Coordinate with City of North 2) Coordinate multi-agency FMA; FHWA; implemented; benefit infrastructure drainage, FNSB Public Pole; mitigation opportunities High (planning + USACE integration of flood investments and transportation, and Works / In FL 4 Flooding DOT&PF; Long Term High (culverts, drainage, road capital programs; mitigation into coordination across infrastructure partners Community Progress Utilities; elevations) improvements) State capital infrastructure agencies, particularly on flood mitigation Planning USACE; 3) Integrate flood funding; projects; for drainage and opportunities NRCS; Partner mitigation into capital Local CIP documented transportation agencies improvement and interagency systems transportation planning coordination efforts FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-11 Page 349 of 1055 1) Maintain coordination with USACE and Fort Knox Mine Documented Supports integration 2) Review available risk and coordination with of flood control operational information USACE and Fort infrastructure and Coordinate with USACE USACE; Fort EMPG; FEMA related to flood control Knox Mine; dam-related risk into and Fort Knox Mine on Knox Mine; BRIC; FNSB structures and tailings incorporation of dam mitigation planning; flood control Flood / City of Medium Low (coordination DHS&EM; FL 5 Emergency Medium storage facility and flood control Proposed reflects stakeholder infrastructure and dam- Infrastructure Fairbanks; Term and staff time) Agency Operations 3) Incorporate considerations into coordination with related risk City of North operating considerations into planning planning USACE and Fort Knox considerations Pole budgets and emergency documents; Mine to address low- preparedness inclusion in exercises probability, high- 4) Coordinate information or planning updates consequence risks sharing during exercises, incidents, and plan updates Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; stakeholder input; and 2026 Plan Update analyses. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-12 Page 350 of 1055 Table 11-5: Seismic Mitigation Actions (Earthquake) Estimated Potential Measurable Hazard(s) Lead Supporting Stakeholder Input ID Mitigation Action Timeframe Priority Implementation Steps Cost / Funding Completion Status Addressed Agency Agencies / Rationale Resources Sources Criteria 1) Inventory critical facilities and identify FNSB Number of facilities priority life-safety facilities Emergency FNSB Community High FEMA BRIC; assessed; prioritized Stakeholders 2) Conduct seismic Evaluate the seismic Operations; Planning; School (engineering HMGP; State retrofit list identified prioritizing screenings (e.g., Rapid In EQ 1 resilience of critical Earthquake City of District; Healthcare Long Term High assessment + capital developed; life safety facilities Visual Screening or Progress facilities where feasible Fairbanks; systems; State potential funding; integration of and essential services engineering assessments) City of North agencies retrofits) Local CIP findings into capital for seismic resilience 3) Identify retrofit priorities Pole planning processes and integration into capital planning 1) Maintain and update adopted building codes Adoption of updated within municipal building codes; Stakeholders Support the adoption jurisdictions Local documented identified apply City of FNSB Community and enforcement of 2) Enforce seismic Medium government enforcement where municipal Fairbanks; Planning; State of EQ 2 seismic provisions in Earthquake Ongoing High provisions during (regulatory budgets; through permitting Ongoing authority exists and City of North Alaska; Developers; applicable building permitting and implementation) State processes; supports long-term Pole Building officials codes construction programs compliance with structural risk 3) Coordinate with state seismic provisions in reduction and regional partners on new construction code adoption consistency 1) Integrate seismic scenarios into emergency FNSB Seismic scenarios plans (CEMP, COOP, EOPs) Emergency incorporated into Stakeholders Incorporate seismic Law Enforcement; 2) Identify operational Operations; Medium EMPG; DHS plans; number of identified operational considerations into Fire; EMS; impacts (facility damage, In EQ 3 Earthquake City of Short Term High (planning + preparedness exercises mitigation and emergency response Healthcare systems; access issues, utilities Progress Fairbanks; exercises) grants conducted; updates preparedness for and recovery planning State agencies disruption) City of North made based on post-event conditions 3) Conduct exercises and Pole after-action reviews update plans based on after-action findings Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; stakeholder input; and 2026 Plan Update analyses. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-13 Page 351 of 1055 Table 11-6: Ground Failure Mitigation Actions (includes Cryosphere) Estimated Potential Measurable Hazard(s) Lead Supporting Stakeholder Input ID Mitigation Action Timeframe Priority Implementation Steps Cost / Funding Completion Status Addressed Agency Agencies / Rationale Resources Sources Criteria 1) Integrate ground failure Ground stability and permafrost risk data considerations Stakeholders into land use, subdivision, incorporated into identified increasing FNSB Public Works; and capital project Incorporate ground FEMA BRIC; planning processes; risks associated with Ground City of Fairbanks; planning Medium stability and permafrost FNSB HMGP; State number of projects permafrost Failure City of North Pole; 2) Evaluate site conditions (planning + GF 1 considerations into Community Ongoing High capital incorporating Ongoing degradation, thaw (Permafrost, DOT&PF; Utilities; during project design design facility and Planning funding; mitigation settlement, and Subsidence) Engineers; 3) Incorporate appropriate considerations) infrastructure planning Local CIP measures; subsidence affecting Developers mitigation measures documentation in infrastructure and (foundation design, plan reviews and development drainage, thermal CIP stabilization) 1) Compile and update existing geotechnical, Stakeholders FEMA Risk Updated datasets Ground permafrost, and identified data gaps FNSB Community Medium MAP; BRIC; completed; hazard Update mapping and Failure subsidence data affecting risk FNSB Planning; University (technical USGS maps developed or data, where available, (including Medium 2) Develop or refine hazard In assessment, GF 2 Emergency of Alaska Fairbanks High analysis and programs; refined; data to support planning and permafrost Term maps and GIS datasets Progress infrastructure Operations (UAF); USGS; State GIS NSF / integrated into mitigation decisions and 3) Integrate updated data planning, and agencies development) research planning and subsidence) into planning, risk prioritization of partnerships mitigation processes assessments, and mitigation efforts mitigation prioritization 1) Develop guidance FNSB Stakeholders materials for property Community Guidance materials identified addressing owners (foundation design, Planning; developed and limited regulatory Provide guidance on drainage, thermal EMPG; State Ground City of FNSB Emergency distributed; number authority and voluntary mitigation management) Medium programs; Failure Fairbanks Operations; UAF of outreach efforts emphasizes GF 3 options for property Long Term Medium 2) Conduct outreach and (education, UAF Ongoing (Permafrost, Building Extension; conducted; education-based and owners in ground education through public outreach) Extension Subsidence) Department; Engineers; Builders increased awareness voluntary mitigation failure hazard areas engagement partnerships City of North of mitigation approaches in 3) Coordinate with builders Pole Building practices variable site and engineers to promote Department conditions best practices Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; stakeholder input; and 2026 Plan Update analyses. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-14 Page 352 of 1055 Table 11-7: Infrastructure, Lifelines, and Supply Chain Mitigation Actions Estimated Potential Measurable Hazard(s) Lead Supporting Stakeholder Input ID Mitigation Action Timeframe Priority Implementation Steps Cost / Funding Completion Status Addressed Agency Agencies / Rationale Resources Sources Criteria Utilities (GVEA, Lifeline inventory 1) Inventory critical lifeline Identify and assess FNSB Golden Heart completed; assets and interdependencies FEMA BRIC; Stakeholders critical lifeline Emergency Utilities); vulnerability 2) Identify single points of DHS&EM; identified vulnerabilities affecting Operations; DOT&PF; Medium assessment failure and cascading risk EMPG; interdependencies IL 1 power, fuel, water, All City of Healthcare Ongoing High (analysis, developed; priority In Progress pathways Infrastructure among lifelines and wastewater, Fairbanks; systems; coordination) risks documented 3) Develop prioritized resilience the need to identify communications, and City of Private and used for vulnerability assessment for grants single points of failure transportation systems North Pole infrastructure planning and grant mitigation planning owners applications City of 1) Identify key supply chains Supply chain Fairbanks; City Stakeholders (fuel, food, medical supplies) scenarios Integrate supply chain of North Pole; identified reflect and dependencies EMPG; DHS incorporated into disruption scenarios into FNSB DOT&PF; Medium Interior Alaska’s Medium 2) Develop disruption scenarios preparedness plans; documentation IL 2 hazard mitigation, All Emergency Utilities; High (planning and In Progress reliance on limited Term (route closure, delayed grants; State of dependency emergency operations, Operations Private sector analysis) transportation delivery, fuel shortage) programs analysis; inclusion in and continuity planning partners (fuel, corridors and long- 3) Integrate into CEMP, COOP, exercises and food, freight); distance supply chains and hazard mitigation planning planning updates State agencies 1) Identify critical transportation corridors and access routes (highways, City of bridges, airport access, rail Critical routes DOT&PF Fairbanks; City Stakeholders Reduce the vulnerability connectivity) FHWA; FEMA identified and (state- of North Pole; identified of key transportation 2) Assess vulnerabilities High (capital BRIC; State mapped; vulnerability owned RSAs; transportation and freight routes (weather, flooding, planning and capital assessments IL 3 All routes); Emergency Long Term High In Progress disruptions as a supporting fuel, food, maintenance constraints, infrastructure budgets; completed; number FNSB (local Operations; primary driver of and medical supply limited alternatives) improvements) DOT&PF of mitigation projects roads and Utilities; cascading impacts and delivery 3) Integrate mitigation programs incorporated into planning) Private freight supply chain failure measures into transportation transportation plans providers planning and capital projects (e.g., drainage, elevation, redundancy) 1) Identify facilities with dependency on external supply Priority facilities FNSB FEMA BRIC; Support continuity (fuel, medical, logistics) identified; continuity Stakeholders Emergency Utilities; HMGP; planning and 2) Assess continuity gaps plans updated; identified maintaining Operations; Healthcare DHS/ASPR redundancy for critical Medium (backup systems, storage High (facility number/percent of essential services IL 4 All City of systems; High grants; In Progress facilities reliant on Term capacity) upgrades) facilities with during extended or Fairbanks; Private facility Facility external fuel, power, 3) Develop and implement redundancy disrupted supply City of operators capital and supply deliveries redundancy measures (onsite measures conditions North Pole budgets fuel, backup power, alternate implemented supply arrangements) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-15 Page 353 of 1055 Estimated Potential Measurable Hazard(s) Lead Supporting Stakeholder Input ID Mitigation Action Timeframe Priority Implementation Steps Cost / Funding Completion Status Addressed Agency Agencies / Rationale Resources Sources Criteria 1) Establish coordination FNSB Documented Stakeholders Improve information Utilities; protocols for lifeline disruption Emergency coordination identified the sharing and DOT&PF; information sharing Low Operations; EMPG; protocols; regular importance of timely, coordination with Private sector 2) Maintain contact lists and (coordination IL 5 All City of Ongoing High Agency partner engagement; Ongoing coordinated private-sector partners partners; communication channels and Fairbanks; budgets improved information information exchange during lifeline and NARVOAD; 3) Conduct coordination during communication) City of sharing during across public and supply chain disruptions State agencies incidents, exercises, and North Pole exercises or incidents private partners planning efforts Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan; stakeholder input; and 2026 Plan Update analyses. . FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-16 Page 354 of 1055 As shown in Tables 11-1 through 11-7, the Mitigation Action Plan includes a range of actions addressing multiple hazards, lifeline systems, and critical dependencies across the Borough. Actions emphasize the protection of life safety, the reduction of risk to critical infrastructure, and the improvement of resilience to cascading impacts on transportation, utilities, and essential services. The MAP reflects a coordinated, multi-jurisdictional approach that integrates stakeholder priorities, available capabilities, and funding considerations. Implementation is expected to occur incrementally over the life of the plan, supported by partnerships, grant funding opportunities, and alignment with existing planning and capital improvement efforts. This approach ensures that mitigation actions remain feasible, adaptable, and responsive to evolving risks and conditions. The MAP supports the mitigation goals established in Chapter 10 and provides a structured framework for ongoing plan maintenance, progress tracking, and future updates. 11.5 Prioritization and Implementation Considerations Mitigation actions included in the MAP were prioritized using qualitative criteria consistent with FEMA guidance and prior FNSB mitigation plans. These criteria support transparent decision-making while recognizing existing authority, capacity, and funding constraints.551 Prioritization considerations include:  Risk reduction and life-safety benefit;  Protection of critical facilities, lifelines, and essential services;  Feasibility within existing legal, regulatory, and operational authority;  Estimated cost, funding eligibility, and implementation complexity; and 551 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Action Plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Mitigation Action Plan Prioritization and Maintenance Guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-17 Page 355 of 1055  Ability to address multiple hazards or reduce cascading impacts.552 As noted in the 2021 MJ-HMP, the implementation of many mitigation actions depends on external funding availability, grant cycles, and matching requirements. Priority rankings are intended to guide funding pursuit, sequencing, and planning decisions, rather than to establish a mandatory order of implementation or guarantee funding.553 11.6 Responsibility for Implementation Responsibility for implementing mitigation actions is assigned to the agency, jurisdiction, or partner best positioned to carry them out, based on ownership, authority, technical capability, and funding source. Primary and supporting responsibilities are identified in the MAP tables.554 The FNSB Emergency Operations Department typically coordinates maintenance of mitigation plans, interagency coordination, and, when applicable, grant oversight. Actual implementation responsibility varies by action and may involve Borough departments, municipalities, fire service areas, utilities, state and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, or private-sector partners.555 Successful implementation depends on continued coordination and partnerships across jurisdictions and sectors, particularly for mitigation actions addressing 552 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Action Plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Mitigation Action Plan Prioritization and Maintenance Guidance. 553 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Action Plan. 554 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Action Plan. 555 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Action Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Interagency Coordination, Emergency Operations, and Partnership Frameworks, 2021–2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-18 Page 356 of 1055 infrastructure, lifelines, wildfires, urban conflagrations, and extended-duration incidents.556 11.7 Monitoring and Maintenance Progress on mitigation actions will be reviewed through the plan maintenance process described later in this document. During annual reviews and future plan updates, mitigation actions may be updated to reflect:  Completed actions;  Actions in progress;  Actions on hold due to funding, authority, or feasibility constraints; or  Actions requiring modification based on changing conditions, new information, or lessons learned.557 The MAP may be adjusted during plan maintenance activities in accordance with FEMA requirements, ensuring that mitigation priorities remain responsive to evolving risks, capabilities, and opportunities.558 Plan effectiveness will be evaluated as part of the plan maintenance process based on mitigation action progress, reduction of identified risks, stakeholder feedback, and continued alignment with community priorities. 11.8 Role in Long-Term Mitigation Strategy The MAP provides a flexible, implementation-focused framework for advancing the mitigation goals over the five-year planning period. While specific mitigation actions, priorities, and funding opportunities may evolve, the MAP ensures 556 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Interagency Coordination, Emergency Operations, and Partnership Frameworks, 2021–2026. 557 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Action Plan. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Hazard Mitigation Plan Maintenance and Update Requirements. 558 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Mitigation Action Plan Prioritization and Maintenance Guidance. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Hazard Mitigation Plan Maintenance and Update Requirements. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-19 Page 357 of 1055 continuity between planning cycles and supports sustained progress toward long-term risk reduction.559 By emphasizing feasibility, coordination, and incremental implementation, the MAP supports ongoing efforts to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards across the FNSB and participating jurisdictions within existing legal, fiscal, and operational constraints.560 11.9 Plan Maintenance and Update Process 11.9.1 Purpose This section updates the plan maintenance and update process established in the 2021 FNSB MJ-HMP. The purpose of the maintenance process is to ensure that the plan remains current, reflects changes in hazard conditions, risk, and local capability, and continues to meet FEMA mitigation planning requirements throughout the five-year planning cycle.561 11.9.2 Responsibility for Plan Maintenance The FNSB Emergency Operations Department remains responsible for overall coordination of hazard mitigation plan maintenance activities. This role is unchanged from the 2021 MJ-HMP and includes:  Coordinating annual plan reviews;  Tracking progress on mitigation actions;  Facilitating coordination among participating jurisdictions, service areas, and partner agencies; and 559 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Stakeholder Checklist and Mitigation Action Input, 2014 and 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Action Plan. 560 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Capability Assessment, and Mitigation Action Plan. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). Interagency Coordination, Emergency Operations, and Partnership Frameworks, 2021–2026. 561 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – Plan Maintenance and Update Procedures. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Action Plan, and Capability Assessment. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-20 Page 358 of 1055  Managing future plan updates and ensuring FEMA compliance.562 Participating in municipalities, service areas, and partner agencies support plan maintenance by providing updates on mitigation actions, changes in capability, and emerging hazards as requested.563 11.9.3 Annual Review Process The MJ-HMP will be reviewed annually during the five-year planning period. Annual reviews may be conducted through staff meetings, stakeholder coordination sessions, or other appropriate mechanisms and will focus on:  Progress toward implementing mitigation actions;  Changes in risk, hazard conditions, or vulnerability;  Changes in regulatory, fiscal, or administrative capability; and  Identification of mitigation actions that may require revision, deferral, or removal.564 Findings from annual reviews may be documented internally or incorporated into routine planning, reporting, and grant management activities, as appropriate.565 Plan Maintenance Documentation and Tracking To support consistent documentation, transparency, and FEMA compliance, the FNSB maintains formal plan maintenance tools in Appendix A (Plan Maintenance Documents). These include the Annual Review Questionnaire (Appendix A.2), the Mitigation Action Progress Report (Appendix A.3), the Plan Amendment and Change Log (Appendix A.4), and the Corrective Action and Implementation 562 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – Plan Maintenance and Update Procedures. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Action Plan, and Capability Assessment. 563 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Action Plan, and Capability Assessment. 564 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Action Plan, and Capability Assessment. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Plan Maintenance, Update, and Amendment Guidance. 565 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Plan Maintenance, Update, and Amendment Guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-21 Page 359 of 1055 Tracking Tool (Appendix A.5). Information collected through the annual stakeholder review process, conducted each September–October, is compiled and used to update mitigation action status, identify new risks or priorities, document implementation challenges, and track corrective actions. Substantive updates, including modifications to mitigation actions, hazard data, or implementation responsibilities, are recorded in the Plan Amendment and Change Log, while identified barriers and follow-up actions are tracked through the Corrective Action Tool. These tools work together to support ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management of the plan, consistent with FEMA requirements under 44 CFR §201.6(c)(4), and ensure that progress, challenges, and changes are documented and incorporated into future plan updates. 11.9.4 MAP Updates The MAP may be updated as part of the annual review process to reflect:  Completed actions;  Actions in progress or delayed due to funding, authority, or feasibility constraints;  Revised priorities based on changing conditions or new information; or  New mitigation actions identified are consistent with the mitigation goals and strategy.566 Minor updates to the MAP that do not constitute a formal plan amendment may be made through established maintenance procedures. Substantive changes will be addressed during a future plan update or formal amendment in accordance with FEMA guidance.567 11.9.5 Plan Amendment Procedures A formal plan amendment may be required if significant changes occur, including: 566 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Action Plan, and Capability Assessment. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Plan Maintenance, Update, and Amendment Guidance. 567 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Plan Maintenance, Update, and Amendment Guidance. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-22 Page 360 of 1055  Major changes to mitigation goals, objectives, or strategy;  Addition of new participating jurisdictions; or  Incorporation of significant new mitigation initiatives that materially alter the scope or direction of the plan.568 Any required plan amendments will be coordinated by the FNSB Emergency Operations Department and submitted to FEMA for review and, as appropriate, approval to maintain plan eligibility for mitigation funding programs.569 11.9.6 Five-Year Plan Update Consistent with FEMA requirements, the MJ-HMP will be formally updated at least once every five years to maintain plan approval and eligibility for certain mitigation funding programs. The update process will include:  Review of hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities;  Evaluation of mitigation progress and effectiveness;  Stakeholder and public involvement; and  Adoption by participating jurisdictions.570 The current Plan Update reflects this required five-year review and incorporates implementation experience and lessons learned from prior planning cycles.571 568 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – Plan Maintenance and Update Procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Plan Maintenance, Update, and Amendment Guidance. 569 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Plan Maintenance, Update, and Amendment Guidance. 570 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – Plan Maintenance and Update Procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Plan Maintenance, Update, and Amendment Requirements. 571 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – Plan Maintenance and Update Procedures. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Action Plan, and Maintenance Process. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-23 Page 361 of 1055 11.9.7 Public Involvement Opportunities for public involvement will be provided during future plan updates and, where feasible, during significant plan maintenance activities. Public input helps ensure that mitigation priorities reflect community concerns and support continued awareness of natural hazard risks throughout the FNSB.572 During the 2026 update process, public involvement included surveys, public meetings, open houses, outreach events, and opportunities for comment, which informed mitigation priorities and action refinement. 11.9.8 Continued Applicability The plan maintenance process is designed to ensure that the MJ-HMP remains a usable, relevant planning document rather than a static report. Through routine review, coordination, and periodic updates, the plan will continue to support informed mitigation decision-making across the FNSB and participating jurisdictions.573 Together, the mitigation strategy, goals, and MAP provide a coordinated framework for reducing risk and enhancing resilience across the FNSB. 572 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Action Plan, and Maintenance Process. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Local Mitigation Planning Handbook – Plan Maintenance, Update, and Amendment Requirements. 573 Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – Plan Maintenance and Update Procedures. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Mitigation Strategy, Action Plan, and Maintenance Process. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 11-24 Page 362 of 1055 12. List of Acronyms The following are acronyms used in this document. Acronym Full Name ACCAP Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness ACOE Army Corps of Engineers ACRC Alaska Climate Research Center ACS American Community Survey ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADOLWD Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development ADRC(s) Aging and Disability Resource Center(s) AEIC Alaska Earthquake Information Center AFB Air Force Base AFS Alaska Fire Service AICC Alaska Interagency Coordination Center AIWFMP Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan AMAC Alaska Multi‐Agency Coordination Group ANC Alaska Native Corporations ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation ARSC Arctic Region Supercomputing Center ASHSC Alaska Seismic Hazard Safety Commission AST Alaska State Troopers ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry AURA Arctic Urban Risks and Adaptations AWFCG Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group BACH Bassett Army Community Hospital BESS Battery Energy Storage System BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management BRIC Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities CAIHC Chief Andrew Isaac Health Center CCHRC Cold Climate Housing Research Center CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Agency CDP Census Designated Place CEDS Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy CEMP Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 12-1 Page 363 of 1055 Acronym Full Name CGFR Chena-Goldstream Fire and Rescue CIP Capital Improvement Plan CMZ Channel Migration Overlay Zone CPG Comprehensive Preparedness Guide CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan DCCRA Department of Commerce, Community, and Regional Affairs DCRA Division of Community and Regional Affairs DFFP Division of Forestry & Fire Protection dFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map DGGS Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys DHS Department of Homeland Security DHS&EM Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management DMA 2000 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 DNR Department of Natural Resources DOD Department of Defense DOI Department of Interior DOT&PF Department of Transportation and Public Facilities EMS Emergency Medical Services EOC Emergency Operations Center EOP(s) Emergency Operations Plan(s) ESS Emergency Services Sector EVFD Ester Volunteer Fire Department FDL Frozen Debris Lobes FECC Fairbanks Emergency Communications Center FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FEPC Fairbanks Local Emergency Planning Committee FFP Fairbanks Fire Department FHP Foundation Health Partners FIA Fairbanks International Airport FIA-FD Fairbanks International Airport Fire Department FIA-PD Fairbanks International Airport Police Department FIRM(s) Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) FIS Flood Insurance Study FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance FMH Fairbanks Memorial Hospital FNSB Fairbanks North Star Borough FNSBC Fairbanks North Star Borough Code FNSBSD Fairbanks North Star Borough School District FPD Fairbanks Police Department FSA(s) Fire Service Area(s) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 12-2 Page 364 of 1055 Acronym Full Name FSW Fairbanks Sewer and Water GIS Geographic Information System GVEA Golden Valley Electric Association HazMat Hazardous Materials HEC-RAS Hydrological Engineering Center River Analysis System HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HMRT Hazardous Materials Response Team HPH Healthcare and Public Health Sector HVA(s) Hazard Vulnerability Analysis IABA Interior Alaska Builders Association IARC International Arctic Research Center IBC International Building Code ICC International Code Council ICHC Interior Community Health Center ICHR Ignition Component Hazard Rating ICU Intensive Care Unit IFC International Fire Code IGU Interior Gas Utility IRHA Interior Regional Housing Authority ISER Institute of Social and Economic Research JPARC Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex LFD Letter of Final Determination LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LLC Limited Liability Corporation LNG Liquefied Natural Gas LOMR(s) Letter of Map Revision(s) LP Legislative Priorities MAP Mitigation Action Plan MJ-HMP Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity MW Megawatt NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NFPA National Fire Protection Association NGO(s) Non-Governmental Organization(s) NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPFD North Pole Fire Department NPPD North Pole Police Department NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NSVFD North Star Volunteer Fire Department FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 12-3 Page 365 of 1055 Acronym Full Name NWS National Weather Service OIPC Office of Intellectual Property and Commercialization PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation PGA Peak Ground Acceleration PMR Physical Map Revision PSAP Public Safety Answering Point PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses RESAC Regional Emergency Services Advisory Committee Risk MAP Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning RL Repetitive Loss RSA(s) Road Service Area(s) SFHA(s) Special Flood Hazard Area(s) SNAP Sustainable Natural Alternative Power Program SPR Stakeholder Preparedness Review SRL Severe Repetitive Loss SVFD Steese Area Volunteer Fire Department SVI Social Vulnerability Index TAPS Trans Alaska Pipeline TCC Tanana Chiefs Council tcf trillion cubic feet THIRA Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis UAF University of Alaska Fairbanks UCM Usibelli Coal Mine UFD University Fire Department UPD University Police Department U.S. United States USDA United States Department of Agriculture USF&W United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey VIP Volunteers in Policing WFO Weather Forecast Office WRN Weather Ready Nation WUI Wildland Urban Interface FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 12-4 Page 366 of 1055 Annex 1: Supply Chain Disruptions Hazard Profile Supply chain disruptions occur when the movement of food, fuel, medical supplies, and other essential goods into the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) is delayed, reduced, or interrupted. Interior Alaska is especially vulnerable to these disruptions due to its geographic isolation, reliance on long-distance transportation networks, and limited redundancy in freight delivery systems. Even short-term interruptions can have immediate impacts on households, businesses, and critical services, especially during winter conditions. 1.1 Nature and Location The FNSB depends heavily on external supply chains for food, fuel, medical supplies, and consumer goods. A significant portion of these goods originates from distribution centers in the Pacific Northwest, particularly the Seattle metropolitan area, and is transported to Interior Alaska primarily via the Alaska Highway. The Alaska Highway serves as the primary overland freight corridor connecting the contiguous United States to Interior Alaska. This route traverses Canada for much of its length and involves international border crossings, reliance on Canadian transportation infrastructure, and exposure to regulatory and operational constraints outside U.S. jurisdiction. Key characteristics that define the hazard include: • Dependence on a single primary overland transportation corridor for freight delivery • Reliance on international border crossings and cross-border trucking operations • Exposure to extreme weather, infrastructure limitations, and long transit distances • Limited redundancy in the regional supply chain and distribution systems As a result, disruptions occurring well outside the Borough, such as in Canada or the Pacific Northwest, can quickly affect the availability of essential goods locally. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1-1 Page 367 of 1055 Figure 1-1: Supply Chain Map Source: Fairbanks North Star Borough GIS and Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of Emergency Operations, Retrieved 6/4/2026. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1-2 Page 368 of 1055 1.2 Historical Occurrence Supply chain disruptions are typically not documented as standalone disaster events but have occurred as secondary impacts of other hazards, including severe weather, flooding, wildfires, transportation interruptions, labor shortages, and national or global supply constraints. Within Interior Alaska, past disruptions have resulted in: • Temporary shortages of food and household goods • Delayed deliveries of essential commodities • Increased costs and reduced availability of products • Reduced reliability of fuel and medical supply deliveries Recent global and national events, including pandemic-related disruptions and transportation system constraints, have demonstrated the sensitivity of Interior Alaska’s supply chains to external conditions and long-distance logistics. 1.3 Possible Impacts from Future Events Future supply chain disruptions may have rapid and widespread impacts across the FNSB due to the limited buffering capacity in local distribution systems. Potential impacts include: • Reduced availability of food and essential goods • Increased prices and reduced product variety • Delays in fuel delivery are affecting heating, transportation, and electric power generation • Disruptions to medical supply deliveries affecting healthcare facilities and pharmacies • Reduced operational capacity of critical infrastructure and essential services • Increased hardship for vulnerable populations, including seniors and individuals with medical needs FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1-3 Page 369 of 1055 Food distribution within the Borough is concentrated among a small number of major retailers that rely on frequent, just-in-time resupply shipments and maintain limited on- site storage capacity. Prolonged supply disruptions could therefore escalate rapidly from localized shortages to broader community impacts. Additionally, supply chain disruptions may create cascading effects, including strain on emergency services, public health systems, and community resilience, particularly during extreme weather or extended-duration events. 1.4 Probability of Future Events Supply chain disruptions are considered to have a moderate to high probability of occurrence within the FNSB. This assessment is based on: • Geographic isolation from major supply centers • Dependence on a single primary overland freight route • Exposure to external events outside local control • Limited redundancy in transportation and logistics systems The likelihood of disruptions increases during: • Severe weather events • Infrastructure damage (roads, bridges, ports, rail systems) • Wildfire activity affecting transportation corridors • Workforce shortages in transportation or logistics sectors • National or global supply constraints The severity of impacts is greatest during winter months, when communities are highly dependent on regular deliveries of fuel, food, and essential goods for life safety. 1.5 Climate-Informed Risk Considerations Climate conditions are expected to increase both the likelihood and consequences of FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1-4 Page 370 of 1055 supply chain disruptions affecting the FNSB. Interior Alaska’s reliance on long-distance transportation corridors makes it vulnerable to disruptions caused by extreme weather and environmental changes occurring across Alaska, Canada, and the Lower 48. Key climate-related risk factors include: • Increased frequency and severity of wildfires, flooding, and severe storms affecting transportation routes • Permafrost degradation, erosion, and ground instability are impacting road infrastructure along the Alaska Highway and other corridors • Damage to bridges, highways, rail systems, ports, and distribution hubs • Increased likelihood of temporary closures, load restrictions, or reduced transportation capacity Disruptions to ports, fuel production facilities, and distribution centers serving Alaska may also produce cascading supply chain effects that extend into Interior Alaska. Taken together, these factors indicate that climate conditions will likely: • Increase the frequency of disruptions • Extend the duration of supply interruptions • Amplify impacts on communities, infrastructure, and essential services 1.6 Existing Hazard Actions Current efforts that help reduce the impacts of supply chain disruptions include: • Coordination with private-sector retailers, distributors, and fuel providers • Public information and communication during shortages or delivery delays • General emergency preparedness and continuity planning • Monitoring of transportation conditions and infrastructure status However, most supply systems remain privately operated with limited local stockpiling or FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1-5 Page 371 of 1055 redundancy, leaving the Borough vulnerable to prolonged or cascading disruptions. Future planning efforts, including integration into emergency operations planning, will focus on improving coordination, situational awareness, and resilience to supply chain disruptions affecting critical commodities. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex 1-6 Page 372 of 1055 Appendix A. Plan Maintenance Documents Appendix A provides the tools, documentation, and supporting materials used to implement, monitor, and maintain the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP). This appendix supports the plan maintenance process described in Section 11.9 by documenting stakeholder involvement and providing standardized tools for annual review, mitigation action tracking, and plan updates. Materials included in this appendix consist of the stakeholder list supporting plan development and maintenance (Section A.1), the Annual Review Questionnaire used to collect ongoing input from participating jurisdictions and partners (Section A.2), the Mitigation Action Progress Report for tracking implementation status (Section A.3), the Plan Amendment and Change Log documenting updates between plan cycles (Section A.4), and the Corrective Action and Implementation Tracking Tool used to address barriers and support adaptive management (Section A.5). Together, these tools ensure continued coordination among jurisdictions, support annual evaluation of hazards and mitigation actions, and maintain compliance with FEMA requirements for plan monitoring, evaluation, and updating. A.1 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) Stakeholders Agency Representative Title Alaska Center for Climate Eleanor Greenbaum Policy Fellow Assessment and Preparedness (ACCAP) / University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Alaska Department of Kimberly Maher Northern Region Manager Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Alaska Department of Jeannette Gorda Public Health Preparedness Health (DOH) Nurse III Alaska Department of Amber Shumpert Statewide Safety System Transportation and Public Manager Facilities (DOT&PF) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-1 Page 373 of 1055 Agency Representative Title Alaska Department of Colby Kusinitz Northern Region Safety Transportation and Public Officer Facilities (DOT&PF) American Red Cross (ARC) Alana Wilson Community Disaster Program Manager American Red Cross (ARC) Lyman Ketcham Volunteer Aurora Energy Phillip Begley General Manager Bureau of Indian Affairs Bjorn Burgeson Fire Management Specialist (BIA) Chena Goldstream Fire and Chief Frank Bracken Fire Chief Rescue (CGFR) City of Fairbanks Mike Sanders Chief of Staff Administration Department of Homeland Garrett Brooks State Hazard Mitigation Security and Emergency Officer Management (DHS&EM) Department of Homeland John Andrews Hazard Mitigation Planner Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) Department of Homeland Todd Russell Hazard Mitigation Grant Security and Emergency Program, Emergency Management (DHS&EM) Management Specialist II Ester Volunteer Fire Chief Jeff Conner Fire Chief Department (EVFD) Fairbanks City Council Sue Sprinkle Council Member Fairbanks Fire Department Chief Andrew Coccaro Fire Chief Fairbanks North Star David Guttenberg Assembly Member Borough (FNSB) Assembly Fairbanks North Star Kellen Spillman Director Borough (FNSB) Community Planning Fairbanks North Star Melissa Kellner Deputy Director Borough (FNSB) Community Planning Fairbanks North Star David Morin GIS Technician Borough (FNSB) Digital Services Fairbanks North Star Steven Hall GIS Technician Borough (FNSB) Digital Services FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-2 Page 374 of 1055 Agency Representative Title Fairbanks North Star Boston Thomas Emergency Management Borough (FNSB) Intern Emergency Operations Fairbanks North Star Colby Kusinitz Former Emergency Borough (FNSB) Management Coordinator Emergency Operations Fairbanks North Star Iain Miller Emergency Services Borough (FNSB) Manager Emergency Operations Fairbanks North Star Daniel Weatherly Emergency Services GIS Borough (FNSB) Tech Emergency Operations Fairbanks North Star Amy Gallaway Deputy Chief of Staff Borough (FNSB) Mayor’s Office Fairbanks North Star Kuba Grzeda Chief of Staff Borough (FNSB) Mayor’s Office Fairbanks North Star Tom Hewitt Special Assistant Borough (FNSB) Mayor’s Office Fairbanks North Star Kaitlin Wilson Public Information Officer Borough (FNSB) Mayor’s Office Fairbanks Resource Agency Wendy Cloyd Community Development (FRA) Director Fort Wainwright Charles Mercer Emergency Manager Fort Wainwright Ernest Decker ATO Foundation Health Partners Kelley Scott Emergency Program (FHP) Manager Foundation Health Partners Keith Fehr FAC Operations Director (FHP) Interior Gas Utility (IGU) Elena Sudduth General Manager Interior Region Emergency Justin Perkins Executive Director Medical Services Council, Inc. (IREMSC) North Pole Fire Chief Chad Heineken Fire Chief / Emergency Department (NPPD) Manager North Pole Police Chris Illingworth Public Safety Assistant Department (NPPD) North Star Volunteer Fire Chief Geoff Coon Fire Chief Department (NSVFD) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-3 Page 375 of 1055 Agency Representative Title North Star Volunteer Fire Kevin Harvey Deputy Fire Chief Department (NSVFD) Northern Alaska Region Wendy Brighton Secretary Volunteers Active in Disasters (NAR-VOAD) Steese Volunteer Fire Chief Scott Learned Fire Chief Department (SVFD) Tanana Chiefs Conference Felisha Cooper Health and Safety Officer (TCC) University of Alaska Kate Janoski Emergency Manager Fairbanks (UAF) University of Alaska Steve Mullins Continuity and Resiliency Fairbanks (UAF) Director University of Alaska Raina Collins Senior IT Risk and Fairbanks (UAF) Compliance Analyst University Police Chief Max Becker Police Chief Department (UPD) University Police Nicole Becker Dispatch Supervisor Department (UPD) Volunteers in Policing Felina Kelly Volunteers In Policing (VIPS) Coordinator Community Member – John Antonik Retired Amateur (HAM) Radio FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-4 Page 376 of 1055 A.2 Annual Review Questionnaire Fairbanks North Star Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) Annual Review Questionnaire Stakeholder / Subject Matter Expert (SME) Input Form This questionnaire supports the annual update of the FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP). Estimated time: 20–30 minutes How to Complete This Questionnaire • This questionnaire is designed for all hazard mitigation partners, including utilities, fire, transportation, military, healthcare, and planning agencies. • Not all questions will apply to every respondent. Please complete only those relevant to your organization. • Brief responses or bullet points are sufficient. • Your input will directly inform updates to hazard risk, mitigation priorities, and FEMA compliance. Return to: EmergencyManagement@fnsb.gov Due Date: October 15th Section 1 – Respondent Information Name: __________________________________________ Agency / Organization: __________________________________________ Email / Phone: __________________________________________ Role / Discipline (check all that apply): ☐ Fire / EMS ☐ Tribal / Community Organization ☐ Healthcare / Public Health ☐ Utilities (electric, gas, water, ☐ Law Enforcement telecom) ☐ Military Installation ☐ Other: ☐ Planning / GIS __________________________ ☐ Public Works / DOT FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-5 Page 377 of 1055 Section 2 – Hazard Events and Changes (Last 12 Months) 1. Did your agency experience or respond to any hazard events? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, check all that apply: ☐ Wildland Fire ☐ Urban Conflagration (structure-to-structure fire) ☐ Flooding / Breakup ☐ Severe Weather (snow, wind, extreme cold, freezing rain in winter, heat) ☐ Earthquake ☐ Infrastructure Failure (power, fuel, telecom) ☐ Hazardous Materials ☐ Public Health / Pandemic ☐ Ground Failure (sinkhole, erosion, landslide) ☐ Other: __________________________ Briefly describe impacts (damage, service disruptions, response challenges): 2. Have you observed any increasing or emerging risks? (Check all that apply) ☐ Increased wildfire risk ☐ Permafrost thaw / ground instability ☐ Flooding changes ☐ Infrastructure strain or aging systems ☐ Supply chain disruptions ☐ Power reliability issues ☐ Climate-related impacts ☐ Other: __________________________ Comments: FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-6 Page 378 of 1055 3. Have you experienced cascading or combined events? (Example: wildfire → power outage → air quality impacts) ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, briefly describe: Section 3 – Infrastructure, Facilities, and Vulnerabilities 4. Have there been changes to critical facilities or infrastructure in your jurisdiction? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, check all that apply: ☐ New facilities or infrastructure ☐ Facility upgrades or expansions ☐ Facility closures or degradation ☐ Changes to service areas Describe: 5. Did any infrastructure or services experience disruption during hazard events? ☐ Yes ☐ No Check affected systems: ☐ Power / Electricity ☐ Fuel / Energy supply ☐ Roads / Transportation ☐ Communications / Telecom ☐ Water / Wastewater ☐ Healthcare services ☐ Emergency response services ☐ Other: __________________________ FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-7 Page 379 of 1055 Describe impacts: 6. Have you observed changes in development or land use that may affect risk? ☐ Yes ☐ No Describe changes (Examples: expansion into wildfire areas, floodplain development, hillside development): Section 4 – Mitigation Actions and Needs 7. Are current mitigation priorities still appropriate? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure 8. What mitigation actions should be prioritized in your sector? (Check up to 5) ☐ Fuel reduction / defensible space ☐ Flood protection / drainage improvements ☐ Infrastructure hardening ☐ Backup power / redundancy ☐ Communication systems improvements ☐ Emergency planning / evacuation routes ☐ Public preparedness education ☐ Protection of critical facilities ☐ Nature-based solutions ☐ Other: __________________________ 9. Identify any new mitigation projects or ideas: FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-8 Page 380 of 1055 10. Are there funding or resource opportunities available for mitigation? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure If yes: ☐ Federal (FEMA BRIC/HMGP) ☐ State ☐ Local ☐ Private / partnerships Comments: Section 5 – Implementation and Coordination 11. Is your agency currently implementing mitigation actions from the MJ-HMP? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, briefly list: 12. What challenges are limiting mitigation implementation? ☐ Funding ☐ Staffing ☐ Technical capacity ☐ Regulatory / permitting ☐ Coordination between agencies ☐ Other: __________________________ 13. Does your agency integrate hazard mitigation into planning? (Check all that apply) ☐ Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) ☐ Comprehensive / Land Use Plan ☐ Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) ☐ Facility / infrastructure planning ☐ Not currently integrated FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-9 Page 381 of 1055 Section 6 – FNSB-Specific Considerations 14. For your sector, which risks are most concerning in the FNSB region? (Check top 3) ☐ Wildfire and smoke impacts ☐ Extreme cold and winter storms ☐ Flooding / breakup ☐ Earthquake ☐ Power / fuel disruption ☐ Permafrost / ground failure ☐ Transportation disruption ☐ Supply chain issues ☐ Other: __________________________ 15. Are there coordination needs with the following partners? (Check all that apply) ☐ Fire service agencies ☐ Utilities (GVEA, IGU, etc.) ☐ Alaska DOT / transportation agencies ☐ Military installations (Ft. Wainwright, Eielson AFB) ☐ Healthcare providers ☐ Tribal organizations ☐ Schools / University (UAF) ☐ Other: __________________________ Describe coordination gaps: Section 7 – Equity and Community Considerations 16. Have you observed populations that are more vulnerable to hazards? ☐ Yes ☐ No (Check all that apply) ☐ Rural or remote residents ☐ Elderly populations ☐ Low-income households ☐ Limited mobility populations ☐ Areas with limited infrastructure ☐ Other: __________________________ FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-10 Page 382 of 1055 17. What actions would improve community resilience? Section 8 – Final Input 18. Top 3 mitigation priorities for the next 5 years: 1. 2. 3. 19. Additional comments or recommendations: FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-11 Page 383 of 1055 A.3 Mitigation Action Progress Report Fairbanks North Star Borough Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) Mitigation Action Progress Report Instructions This form is used to track progress on mitigation actions identified in the FNSB Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP). Who should complete this: Agencies or partners responsible for implementing mitigation projects. Return to: EmergencyManagement@fnsb.gov Reporting Period: __________________________ Section 1 – Project Information Project Title: __________________________________________ Project ID (if applicable): __________________________________________ Hazard(s) Addressed (check all that apply): ☐ Wildland Fire ☐ Flooding ☐ Severe Weather / Extreme Cold ☐ Earthquake ☐ Infrastructure Failure ☐ Hazardous Materials ☐ Other: __________________________ Project Location (general area): __________________________________________ Section 2 – Responsible Agency Agency / Organization: __________________________________________ Primary Contact Name: __________________________________________ Title: __________________________________________ Phone / Email: __________________________________________ FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-12 Page 384 of 1055 Supporting Agencies / Partners: Section 3 – Project Description Brief description of the mitigation project: Purpose (what risk does this reduce?): Population / assets benefiting (if applicable): Section 4 – Schedule and Status Date of Project Approval: __________________________ Project Start Date: __________________________ Current Status (check one): ☐ Planning / Design ☐ In Progress ☐ Delayed ☐ Completed ☐ Canceled Estimated % Complete: ______ % Anticipated Completion Date: __________________________ FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-13 Page 385 of 1055 Section 5 – Milestones Status (Complete/In Expected Completion Milestone Progress) Date __________________________________ __________________ __________________ __________________________________ __________________ __________________ __________________________________ __________________ __________________ Section 6 – Funding and Cost Total Project Cost (estimate or actual): __________________________ Funding Sources (check all that apply): ☐ Federal (FEMA – BRIC / HMGP / other) ☐ State ☐ Local ☐ Private / Utility ☐ Other: __________________________ Cost Status: ☐ On Budget ☐ Over Budget (explain below) ☐ Under Budget Comments: Section 7 – Progress Summary A. Accomplishments During This Reporting Period FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-14 Page 386 of 1055 B. Challenges / Obstacles (Check all that apply) ☐ Funding gaps ☐ Staffing limitations ☐ Permitting / regulatory issues ☐ Weather / seasonal impacts ☐ Supply chain delays ☐ Coordination between agencies ☐ Other: __________________________ Explanation: C. Actions Taken to Address Challenges D. Next Steps (Next Reporting Period) Section 8 – Outcomes and Benefits What risk reduction or benefit has been achieved so far? (Examples: reduced wildfire risk, improved response time, increased reliability) Does this project improve resilience of critical systems? (Check all that apply) ☐ Power / energy ☐ Transportation ☐ Communications ☐ Water / Wastewater ☐ Emergency response ☐ Healthcare ☐ Other: __________________________ FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-15 Page 387 of 1055 Section 9 – Integration and Coordination Is this project being integrated into other plans or programs? (Check all that apply) ☐ Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) ☐ Comprehensive / land use plan ☐ Emergency Operations Plan ☐ Infrastructure planning ☐ Not integrated Coordination with other agencies (if applicable): Section 10 – Additional Considerations Does this project address future or changing risks (e.g., climate, growth)? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure Lessons learned or recommendations: Section 11 – Additional Comments Updates identified through mitigation action tracking should be documented in the Plan Amendment and Change Log (Appendix A.4) to support ongoing plan maintenance and future updates. Identified challenges and implementation barriers should be tracked and addressed using the Corrective Action Tracking Tool (Appendix A.5). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-16 Page 388 of 1055 A.4 Plan Amendment and Change Log This log documents all substantive updates, revisions, and amendments to the FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) between formal five-year plan updates. Maintaining this record ensures transparency, supports FEMA compliance, and provides continuity for future plan updates. Plan amendments may result from: • Annual stakeholder review meetings • Updated hazard data or risk assessments • Changes in community development, infrastructure, or vulnerabilities • Updates to mitigation actions or priorities • Completion, modification, or removal of mitigation actions • Changes in jurisdictional responsibilities or capabilities • Integration with other plans (e.g., CEMP, CWPP) Minor updates (administrative corrections, formatting, or clarifications) may be documented in this log without requiring formal adoption of the plan. Major amendments affecting mitigation strategy, risk assessment, or jurisdictional participation must follow the formal amendment and adoption process described in Section 11.9. Plan Maintenance Schedule Reference • Annual Review Period: September–October (Stakeholder Meeting and Questionnaire Distribution) • Annual Report Compilation: November–December • Five-Year Update Initiation: 2030 • Next Full Plan Update Due: 2031 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-17 Page 389 of 1055 Plan Amendment / Change Log Table Date Section / Table Type of Change Description of Change Trigger / Source Lead Agency Approval Status Notes Updated MM/DD/YYYY (e.g., Table 11-7, ☐ Minor Update Brief description of revision (e.g., added new ☐ Annual Review (e.g., FNSB ☐ Documented Only Additional context or cross-reference Section 4.5) ☐ Major Amendment mitigation action, updated hazard data, revised ☐ Stakeholder Input Emergency ☐ Pending Approval timeline) ☐ New Data Management) ☐ Approved by Assembly/Council ☐ Project Completion ☐ Submitted to FEMA ☐ Other ☐ Minor Update ☐ Annual Review ☐ Documented Only ☐ Major Amendment ☐ Stakeholder Input ☐ Pending Approval ☐ New Data ☐ Approved by Assembly/Council ☐ Project Completion ☐ Submitted to FEMA ☐ Other ☐ Minor Update ☐ Annual Review ☐ Documented Only ☐ Major Amendment ☐ Stakeholder Input ☐ Pending Approval ☐ New Data ☐ Approved by Assembly/Council ☐ Project Completion ☐ Submitted to FEMA ☐ Other ☐ Minor Update ☐ Annual Review ☐ Documented Only ☐ Major Amendment ☐ Stakeholder Input ☐ Pending Approval ☐ New Data ☐ Approved by Assembly/Council ☐ Project Completion ☐ Submitted to FEMA ☐ Other ☐ Minor Update ☐ Annual Review ☐ Documented Only ☐ Major Amendment ☐ Stakeholder Input ☐ Pending Approval ☐ New Data ☐ Approved by Assembly/Council ☐ Project Completion ☐ Submitted to FEMA ☐ Other ☐ Minor Update ☐ Annual Review ☐ Documented Only ☐ Major Amendment ☐ Stakeholder Input ☐ Pending Approval ☐ New Data ☐ Approved by Assembly/Council ☐ Project Completion ☐ Submitted to FEMA ☐ Other ☐ Minor Update ☐ Annual Review ☐ Documented Only ☐ Major Amendment ☐ Stakeholder Input ☐ Pending Approval ☐ New Data ☐ Approved by Assembly/Council ☐ Project Completion ☐ Submitted to FEMA ☐ Other ☐ Minor Update ☐ Annual Review ☐ Documented Only ☐ Major Amendment ☐ Stakeholder Input ☐ Pending Approval ☐ New Data ☐ Approved by Assembly/Council ☐ Project Completion ☐ Submitted to FEMA ☐ Other FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-18 Page 390 of 1055 Change Type Definitions • Minor Update: Administrative or non-substantive changes that do not alter the overall mitigation strategy or plan structure (e.g., updated status, corrected data, clarified language). • Major Amendment: Substantive changes that affect mitigation strategy, risk assessment findings, jurisdictional participation, or plan structure. These require formal review, adoption, and potential FEMA approval. Guidance for Use • This log should be updated annually following the stakeholder review process. • Entries should align with updates identified through: o Annual Review Questionnaire (Appendix A.2) o Mitigation Action Progress Reports (Appendix A.3) • All participating jurisdictions should coordinate updates through FNSB Emergency Management. • The log should be maintained as part of the official plan record and included in future plan updates. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-19 Page 391 of 1055 A.5 Corrective Action and Implementation Tracking Tool This tool is used to document and track corrective actions needed to address challenges, delays, or barriers affecting mitigation project implementation. It supports adaptive management by ensuring that identified issues are addressed and resolved through coordinated follow-up actions. Corrective actions may be identified through: • Annual Review Questionnaires (Appendix A.2) • Mitigation Action Progress Reports (Appendix A.3) • Stakeholder meetings (September–October annual review cycle) • Grant development or project implementation challenges • Changes in funding, staffing, regulatory conditions, or project feasibility This tool is maintained by FNSB Emergency Management and updated annually as part of the plan maintenance process. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-20 Page 392 of 1055 Corrective Action Tracking Table Date Related Issue / Barrier Identified Impact on Corrective Action / Next Steps Responsible Target Status Notes Identified Action ID Implementation Agency Completion MM/DD/YYYY (e.g., IL-3) Describe issue (e.g., funding gap, ☐ Minor Delay Specific steps to resolve issue (e.g., apply for (Lead agency) MM/YYYY ☐ Open Additional details permitting delay, staffing shortage) ☐ Significant Delay BRIC, coordinate with DOT&PF, revise ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation project scope) ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved ☐ Minor Delay ☐ Open ☐ Significant Delay ☐ In Progress ☐ Preventing Implementation ☐ Resolved FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-21 Page 393 of 1055 Status Definitions • Open: Issue identified, no action initiated • In Progress: Corrective action underway • Resolved: Issue addressed; project may proceed or resume Guidance for Use • Each corrective action should be linked to a MAP Action ID (Tables 11-1 through 11-7). • Actions should be reviewed and updated during the annual September–October stakeholder review cycle. • Persistent or unresolved issues should be evaluated for: o Project modification o Reprioritization o Removal or replacement in future plan updates • Completed corrective actions should be reflected in: o Updated project status (Appendix A.3) o Plan revisions (Appendix A.4 Change Log) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix A-22 Page 394 of 1055 Appendix B. Public Outreach This appendix documents the public outreach and stakeholder engagement conducted as part of the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) update. Public involvement is a critical component of the planning process and supports the identification of hazards and vulnerabilities, as well as the development of mitigation strategies that reflect community needs, priorities, and local conditions. Outreach efforts were designed to provide multiple opportunities for participation and included stakeholder meetings, executive-level coordination meetings with participating jurisdictions, public meetings, open house events, coordination with advisory committees and governing bodies, and a formal public comment period. Engagement methods also included social media outreach, local media coverage, and the distribution of informational materials, such as open house and public comment flyers. To further support participation, printed draft plan materials and comment forms were made available at accessible community locations, including libraries, clerk’s offices, and other high-visibility public venues. Outreach activities were conducted to reach a broad and diverse cross-section of the community, including rural residents, vulnerable populations, and areas with limited access to traditional planning processes. Efforts included geographically distributed outreach locations and the placement of physical materials across the Borough, as well as the use of both in-person and digital engagement methods to maximize accessibility and participation. A total of 38 outreach activities were conducted between February and August 2026, including stakeholder meetings, executive coordination meetings, public meetings, open house events, advisory committee briefings, and governing body presentations through plan adoption. Attendance records, sign-in sheets, and engagement documentation are included in this appendix. Social media outreach and digital engagement metrics are also summarized to demonstrate the reach and effectiveness of public notification efforts. Input received through these outreach efforts was used to inform updates to hazard identification, risk assessment findings, and mitigation actions included in this plan. Public and stakeholder feedback helped validate identified risks, highlight community concerns, and support the development and prioritization of mitigation strategies. These outreach activities supported the planning process described in Section 2.2 by providing structured, iterative opportunities for input throughout plan development. Engagement was incorporated at key milestones, including hazard identification, risk assessment, mitigation strategy development, and plan review and adoption, ensuring FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-1 Page 395 of 1055 that the final plan reflects stakeholder priorities, local knowledge, and community- validated risk information. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-2 Page 396 of 1055 B.1 Public Involvement Activity Date Location Purpose FNSB Administration 1/26/2026 JHAC, Salcha Kick-off meeting with Kick-Off Meeting Conference Room FNSB administration Fairbanks and North 1/29/2026 Emergency Kick-off meeting with city Pole Kick-Off Meeting Operations (EO) administrations Conference Room FNSB Internal Group 1/30/2026 JHAC, Salcha Kick-off meeting for FNSB Kick-Off Meeting Conference Room Department stakeholders North Pole City Council 2/2/2026 CONP Chambers Discussion for MJ-HMP Participation & Stakeholder Group Member Fairbanks City Council 2/3/2026 COF Chambers Discussion for Stakeholder Group Member FNSB Press Release 2/6/2026 Press Release Public outreach Stakeholder Meeting 2/12/2026 Carlson Center Stakeholder input Stakeholder Meeting 2/25/2026 Carlson Center Stakeholder input Executive Group 2/26/2026 EO Conference Administration input Meeting Room Planning Commission 3/10/2026 FNSB Chambers Plan update briefing Stakeholder Meeting 3/18/2026 Carlson Center Stakeholder input Executive Group 3/26/2026 EO Conference Administration input Meeting Room Public Meeting 4/6/2026 Ken Kunkel Center Public input Public Meeting 4/7/2026 North Pole Library Public input Public Meeting 4/8/2026 Noel Wien Library Public input Public Meeting 4/9/2026 Ester Volunteer Public input Fire Department Fairbanks Local 4/22/2026 Emergency Stakeholder input Emergency Planning Operations Center Committee (FEPC) Stakeholder Meeting 4/22/2026 Emergency Stakeholder input Operations Center Executive Group 4/23/2026 EO Conference Administration input Meeting Room Executive Group 5/14/2026 EO Conference Administration input Meeting Room FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-3 Page 397 of 1055 Regional Emergency 5/18/2026 FNSB Chambers Plan update briefing and Services Advisory stakeholder input Committee (RESAC) Stakeholder Meeting 5/20/2026 Noel Wien Library Stakeholder input Executive Group 5/28/2026 EO Conference Administration input Meeting Room Open House 6/2/2026 North Pole Library Public comment Open House 6/3/2026 Noel Wien Library Public comment Open House 6/4/2026 Ester Volunteer Public comment Fire Department Stakeholder Meeting 6/8/2026 Carlson Center Stakeholder input Juneteenth Festival 6/20/26 Carlson Center Public comment (FNSB Table) Rear Field Executive Group 6/25/2026 EO Conference Administration input Meeting Room Stakeholder Meeting 6/28/2026 Zoom Stakeholder input FNSB Planning 7/28/2026 FNSB Chambers Plan update briefing, Commission input, approval CONP City Council 8/3/2026 CONP Chambers Plan update briefing COF City Council 8/4/2026 COF Chambers Plan update briefing COF City Council 8/10/2026 COF Chambers Plan adoption FNSB Assembly 8/13/2026 FNSB Chambers Plan introduction CONP City Council 8/17/2026 CONP Chambers Plan adoption FNSB Assembly 8/20/2026 FNSB Chambers Plan update briefing FNSB Assembly 8/27/2026 FNSB Chambers Plan adoption FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-4 Page 398 of 1055 B.2 FNSB Official Press Release, Office of the Mayor, February 6, 2026 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-5 Page 399 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-6 Page 400 of 1055 B.3 Public Meeting Outreach B.3.1 April Public Meetings Flyer: Facebook, March 20, 2026, 5:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-7 Page 401 of 1055 B.3.2 April Public Meetings Flyer: Facebook, March 30, 2026, 5:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-8 Page 402 of 1055 B.3.3 April Public Meetings Flyer: Instagram, March 31, 2026, 5:01 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-9 Page 403 of 1055 B.3.4 Ken Kunckel Public Meetings Flyer: Facebook, April 5, 2026, 5:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-10 Page 404 of 1055 B.3.5 Ken Kunckel Public Meetings Flyer: Instagram, April 5, 2026, 5:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-11 Page 405 of 1055 B.3.6 North Pole Library Public Meetings Flyer: Facebook, April 6, 2026, 5:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-12 Page 406 of 1055 B.3.7 North Pole Library Public Meetings Flyer: Instagram, April 6, 2026, 5:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-13 Page 407 of 1055 B.3.8 North Pole Library Public Meeting Reel: Facebook, April 7, 2026, 11:02 AM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-14 Page 408 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-15 Page 409 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-16 Page 410 of 1055 B.3.9 North Pole Library Public Meeting Reel: Instagram, April 7, 2026, 11:02 AM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-17 Page 411 of 1055 B.3.10 Noel Wien Library Public Meetings Flyer: Facebook, April 7, 2026, 5:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-18 Page 412 of 1055 B.3.11 Noel Wien Library Public Meetings Flyer: Instagram, April 7, 2026, 5:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-19 Page 413 of 1055 B.3.12 Ester Volunteer Fire Department Public Meetings Flyer: Facebook, April 8, 2026, 5:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-20 Page 414 of 1055 B.3.13 Ester Volunteer Fire Department Public Meetings Flyer: Facebook, April 8, 2026, 5:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-21 Page 415 of 1055 B.4 Public Meeting Documentation B.4.1 Ken Kunckel Community Center, April 6, 2026 (3 FNSB staff, 0 community members, 3 total) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-22 Page 416 of 1055 B.4.2 North Pole Library, April 7, 2026 (4 FNSB staff, 1 CONP staff, 5 community members, 10 total) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-23 Page 417 of 1055 B.4.3 Noel Wien Library, April 8, 2026 (3 FNSB staff, 5 community members, 8 total) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-24 Page 418 of 1055 B.4.4 Ester Volunteer Fire Department, April 9, 2026 (4 FNSB staff, 2 EVFD staff, 3 community members, 9 total) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-25 Page 419 of 1055 B.5 Public Open House Outreach B.5.1 June Public Open Houses Flyer: Facebook, May 1, 2026, 6:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-26 Page 420 of 1055 B.5.2 June Public Open Houses Flyer: Instagram, May 1, 2026, 6:001 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-27 Page 421 of 1055 B.5.3 June Public Open Houses Flyer and 30-Day Public Comment Period Flyer Postings, May 28, 2026 June Open House Flyer and 30-Day Public Comment Period Flyer Posting Locations Alaska Coffee Roaster Company Birch Hill Recreation Area Chena Hot Springs Gas DW Grill Ester Community Park Ester Gas Ester Post Office Ester Village Bulletin Board Fairbanks City Hall FNSB Juanita Helms Administration Center Fox General Store Goldstream General Store Haystack Mailboxes Bulletin Board JP Jones Community Center Justa Store Lulu’s Bread & Bagels McCafferty’s Coffee House Moose Mountain Mailboxes Bulletin Board Noel Wien Library North Pole City Hall North Pole Library Pleasant Valley Post Office 3 Bears North Pole/Ace Hardware Some Display Pictures: Noel Wien Library FNSB JHAC North Pole Library FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-28 Page 422 of 1055 B.5.4 June Public Open Houses Flyer: Instagram, May 29, 2026, 6:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-29 Page 423 of 1055 B.5.5 June Public Open Houses Flyer: Facebook, May 29, 2026, 6:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-30 Page 424 of 1055 B.5.6 Fairbanks Daily Newsminer Article for Open Houses, June 1, 2026 Open house events seek input on borough's hazard mitigation plan | Local News | newsminer.com Open house events seek input on borough's hazard mitigation plan Staff report 7 hrs ago (Article pulled on 6/1/26 at 2:10 PM) News-Miner file photo FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-31 Page 425 of 1055 The Fairbanks North Star Borough will host open houses to hear input and provide information on its update to the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan this week. The open houses are slated for 5-7 p.m. Tuesday at North Pole Library, 656 NPHS Blvd.; 5-7 p.m. Wednesday at Noel Wien Library, 1215 Cowles St.; and 6-8 p.m. Thursday at the Ester Volunteer Fire Department, 3570 Old Nenana Highway. Updated every five years as required by federal law, the plan is developed by local government departments, fire departments, utilities, health and social service organizations, experts on wildfire, climate and hydrology and members of the public. The Hazard Mitigation Plan is a guiding document and set of tools for the borough, the City of Fairbanks and City of North Pole to reduce long-term natural hazard risks. According to the borough, the plan identifies the most likely disasters that could impact the borough, evaluates community vulnerabilities, outlines mitigation actions that help protect lives, property, infrastructure, and essential service. The 2026 update includes several additional situations “to expand the plan’s risk awareness and support broader preparedness and mitigation planning efforts.” Those hazards include cybersecurity, hazardous materials, liquified natural gas, long-term power outages, supply chain disruptions and terrorism. It’s also used as a resource for federal mitigation grants for projects such as drainage improvements, wildfire mitigation, seismic retrofits and flood protection. The current draft is open for public comment through June 28. The plan can be found online at www.fnsb.gov/HMP. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-32 Page 426 of 1055 B.5.7 June Public Open Houses North Pole Library Flyer: Instagram, June 1, 2026, 4:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-33 Page 427 of 1055 B.5.8 June Public Open Houses North Pole Library Flyer: Facebook, June 1, 2026, 8:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-34 Page 428 of 1055 B.5.9 June Public Open Houses North Pole Library Reminder, June 2, 2026, 2:40 PM B.5.10 June Public Open Houses Reminder, June 2, 2026, 2:43 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-35 Page 429 of 1055 B.5.11 June Public Open Houses Noel Wein Library Flyer: Instagram, June 2, 2026, 4:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-36 Page 430 of 1055 B.5.12 June Public Open Houses Noel Wein Library Flyer: Facebook, June 2, 2026, 8:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-37 Page 431 of 1055 B.5.13 June Public Open Houses Ester Volunteer Fire Department Flyer: Instagram, June 3, 2026, 4:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-38 Page 432 of 1055 B.5.14 June Public Open Houses Ester Volunteer Fire Department Flyer: Facebook, June 3, 2026, 8:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-39 Page 433 of 1055 B.6 Public Open House Documentation B.6.1 North Pole Library, June 2, 2026 (3 FNSB staff, 2 community members, 5 total) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-40 Page 434 of 1055 B.6.2 Noel Wien Library, June 3, 2026 (4 FNSB staff, 2 COF staff, 4 ARC staff / 8 community members, 18 total) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-41 Page 435 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-42 Page 436 of 1055 B.6.3 Ester Volunteer Fire Department (4 FNSB staff, 1 DFFD staff, 3 EVFD staff, 6 community members, 14 total) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-43 Page 437 of 1055 B.7 30-Day Public Comment Period Social Media Posts B.7.1 30-Day Public Comment Flyer: Facebook, May 29, 2026, 10:00 AM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-44 Page 438 of 1055 B.7.2 30-Day Public Comment Flyer: Instagram, May 29, 2026, 10:00 AM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-45 Page 439 of 1055 B.7.3 30-Day Public Comment Reel, Instagram, June 2, 2026, 2:36 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-46 Page 440 of 1055 B.7.4 30-Day Public Comment Reel, Facebook, June 2, 2026, 2:37 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-47 Page 441 of 1055 B.7.3 KTUU/KTVF Interview, Interior Alaska Prepares for Wildfire Season (includes 30-Day Public Comment Period), June 2, 2026, Interior Alaska prepares for wildfire season Interior Alaska prepares for wildfire season FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-48 Page 442 of 1055 Officials at the Fairbanks North Star Borough are getting ready to coordinate safety measures in the community as wildfire season approaches. By Alex Bengel Published: Jun. 2, 2026 at 4:49 PM AKDT|Updated: 22 hours ago FAIRBANKS, Alaska (KTUU/KTVF) - As wildfire season approaches in Interior Alaska, officials at the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) are getting ready to coordinate safety measures in the community. According to Luke Butcher, Director of Emergency Operations with the borough, preparing for wildfires includes keeping an eye on weather conditions that may pose a risk. “We’re looking for warm days in the 70s or higher,” he said. “We’re looking for a wind that’s 5 to 15 miles an hour and we’re really paying attention to the minimum relative humidities, so when you start seeing relative humidities in the teens is when you have the real big potential for fire to take hold.” Butcher said wildfire season typically begins between June 13 and 20, when lightning- based fires begin to flare up. “We get an awful lot of small fires that are caused by human interactions with the woods around here, but the lightning-based fires often are more removed from the roadway and then have more time to grow before we are able to either one, know about them or two, get to them,” Butcher said. So far this summer, a fire has already sprung up in Fairbanks at the South Cushman Shooting Range in Fairbanks, according to FNSB Mayor Grier Hopkins, who added that it has already been put out. “Last summer was our biggest local wildfire situation ever in terms of evacuation responses. Not the most burn, but in terms of impacts on communities. We had our first... structure burned down from a wildfire, in as long as anybody can remember,” Hopkins said, concluding that the borough’s performance last year gives him confidence in their ability to handle this year’s wildfire season. Once a wildfire begins, the borough is responsible for alerting the public and working with fire managers at the scene to determine whether an evacuation is necessary. “A determining factor is definitely how long it takes for a person to evacuate a neighborhood. Some of the longer single-road in and out neighborhoods are ones that we’ll be more proactive about changing their status sooner, and we really rely on feedback from the boots on the ground out there as to what the fire is doing,” Butcher said, explaining that the vegetation in the area can also impact the decision-making. When wildfire season begins to taper off in mid-August, planning for the next summer begins. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-49 Page 443 of 1055 The borough is currently working on its Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which Butcher said has identified wildfires as the borough’s top natural hazard locally. Public comment on the mitigation plan is currently open until June 28, and borough officials are scheduled to hold three public meetings about it this week, at North Pole Branch Library on Tuesday, Noel Wien Public Library on Wednesday and finally at the Ester Fire Station on Thursday. “In the first portion of the plan we really describe all the different natural hazards. really talk about how we prioritize them but [chapters] 10 and 11 is, we’re talking about mitigation strategies, the things we’re going to do to make it safer for us as a community, and then, are they feasible? Could we actually accomplish these things?” Butcher said. “Those are the pieces that we’re looking for from the community, and are we on the mark, or do you have some feedback to help us tighten that, tighten that target down?” Meanwhile, the director advised that borough residents opt in to receiving emergency alerts, including evacuation orders, by texting FNSBAlert to 67283. Hopkins said if you have already signed up for these alerts, you do not have to reapply this year. See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com Copyright 2026 KTUU. All rights reserved. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-50 Page 444 of 1055 B.7.4 Daily Dispatch ran the KTUU/KTVF Interview, Interior Alaska Prepares for Wildfire Season (includes 30-Day Public Comment Period), June 3, 2026, Interior Alaska prepares for wildfire season - Daily Dispatch Interior Alaska prepares for wildfire season • June 3, 2026 As wildfire season approaches in Interior Alaska, officials at the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) are getting ready to coordinate safety measures in the community. According to Luke Butcher, Director of Emergency Operations with the borough, preparing for wildfires includes keeping an eye on weather conditions that may pose a risk. “We’re looking for warm days in the 70s or higher,” he said. “We’re looking for a wind that’s 5 to 15 miles an hour and we’re really paying attention to the minimum relative humidities, so when you start seeing relative humidities in the teens is when you have the real big potential for fire to take hold.” Butcher said wildfire season typically begins between June 13 and 20, when lightning- based fires begin to flare up. “We get an awful lot of small fires that are caused by human interactions with the woods around here, but the lightning-based fires often are more removed from the roadway and then have more time to grow before we are able to either one, know about them or two, get to them,” Butcher said. KTUU-TV NBC/CBS 2 Anchorage FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-51 Page 445 of 1055 B.7.5 30-Day Public Comment Flyer: Instagram, June 4, 2026, 3:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-52 Page 446 of 1055 B.7.6 30-Day Public Comment Flyer: Facebook, June 4, 2026, 8:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-53 Page 447 of 1055 B.7.7 30-Day Public Comment Flyer: FNSB Website Spotlight, June 8, 2026 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-54 Page 448 of 1055 B.7.7 30-Day Public Comment Flyer: Instagram, June 14, 2026, 4:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-55 Page 449 of 1055 B.7.8 30-Day Public Comment Flyer: Facebook, June 14, 2026, 8:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-56 Page 450 of 1055 B.7.9 30-Day Public Comment Flyer: Instagram, June 22, 2026, 4:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-57 Page 451 of 1055 B.7.10 30-Day Public Comment Flyer: Facebook, June 22, 2026, 8:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-58 Page 452 of 1055 B.8 Social Media Promotion Statistics Social Media Post: Community Post Reach Interactions / Clicks Link WatchTime Follows & Likes Reactions Comments Shares Saves Meetings Date Views April Public 3/20/26 2,874 N/A 21 2 0 10 0 11 0 Meetings Flyer: Facebook April Public 3/30/26 1,304 N/A 5 0 0 3 0 2 0 Meetings Flyer Reminder: Facebook April Public 3/31/26 248 159 7 N/A 0 3 0 3 1 Meetings Flyer Reminder: Instagram Ken Kunckel Public 4/5/26 2,307 N/A 5 0 0 3 0 2 0 Meeting Flyer: Facebook Ken Kunckel Public 4/5/26 272 156 2 N/A 0 2 0 0 0 Meeting Flyer: Instagram North Pole Public 4/6/26 12,767 N/A 7 0 0 3 1 3 0 Meeting Flyer: Facebook North Pole Public 4/6/26 212 126 1 N/A 0 1 0 0 0 Meeting Flyer: Instagram North Pole Public 4/7/26 46,386 N/A 219 11 15 123 76 22 3 Meeting Reel: Facebook North Pole Public 4/7/26 436 279 14 N/A 0 9 0 4 0 Meeting Reel: Instagram Noel Wien Library 4/7/26 964 N/A 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 Public Meeting Flyer: Facebook Noel Wien Library 4/7/26 187 120 2 N/A 0 2 0 0 0 Public Meeting Flyer: Instagram FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-59 Page 453 of 1055 Social Media Post: Community Post Reach Interactions / Clicks Link WatchTime Follows & Likes Reactions Comments Shares Saves Meetings Date Views Ester Volunteer 4/8/26 1,548 N/A 7 0 0 3 0 4 0 Fire Department Public Meeting Flyer: Facebook Ester Volunteer 4/8/26 194 112 1 N/A 0 1 0 0 0 Fire Department Public Meeting Flyer: Instagram June Public Open 5/1/26 1,424 N/A 7 1 0 4 0 3 0 Houses Flyer: Facebook June Public Open 5/1/26 238 148 2 N/A 0 2 0 0 0 Houses Flyer: Instagram June Public Open 5/29/26 1,435 N/A 9 6 0 3 0 7 1 Houses Flyer: Facebook June Public Open 5/29/26 211 136 1 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Houses Flyer: Instagram 30-Day Public 5/29/26 1,538 N/A 7 5 0 3 0 4 0 Comment Flyer: Facebook 30-Day Public 5/29/26 149 93 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Comment Flyer: Instagram North Pole Public 6/1/26 1,290 N/A 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 Meeting Flyer: Facebook North Pole Public 6/1/26 184 117 2 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Meeting Flyer: Instagram 30-Day Comment 6/2/26 582 438 18 1h 0 13 0 5 0 Period Reel: 12m Instagram FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-60 Page 454 of 1055 Social Media Post: Community Post Reach Interactions / Clicks Link WatchTime Follows & Likes Reactions Comments Shares Saves Meetings Date Views 30-Day Comment 6/2/26 2,376 17 2 N/A 0 12 1 2 2 Period Reel: Facebook North Pole Public 6/2/26 459 N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Meeting Reminder: Facebook June Open House 6/2/26 2,200 N/A 3 2 0 3 0 1 0 Reminder: Facebook Noel Wien Library 6/2/26 1,861 N/A 7 1 0 4 0 3 0 Public Meeting Flyer: Facebook Noel Wien Library 6/2/26 151 87 2 N/A 0 2 0 0 0 Public Meeting Flyer: Instagram Ester Volunteer 6/3/26 1,018 N/A 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 Fire Department Public Meeting Flyer: Facebook Ester Volunteer 6/3/26 119 79 2 N/A 0 2 0 0 0 Fire Department Public Meeting Flyer: Instagram 30-Day Public 6/4/26 1,049 N/A 4 0 0 1 0 1 2 Comment Flyer: Facebook 30-Day Public 6/4/26 171 103 1 N/A 0 1 0 0 0 Comment Flyer: Instagram 30-Day Public 6/14/26 806 N/A 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 Comment Flyer: Facebook 30-Day Public 6/14/26 103 60 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Comment Flyer: Instagram FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-61 Page 455 of 1055 Social Media Post: Community Post Reach Interactions / Clicks Link WatchTime Follows & Likes Reactions Comments Shares Saves Meetings Date Views 30-Day Public 6/22/26 849 N/A 7 0 0 3 0 4 0 Comment Flyer: Facebook 30-Day Public 6/22/26 83 56 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Comment Flyer: Instagram Totals 87,995 2,286 375 29 / 15 223 78 84 9 1hr 12m Summary of Outreach and Engagement The FNSB conducted a comprehensive and multi-layered outreach effort to support the 2026 MJ-HMP update. Engagement included coordination with participating jurisdictions (City of Fairbanks and City of North Pole), advisory bodies such as the Fairbanks Local Emergency Planning Committee (FEPC) and the Regional Emergency Services Advisory Committee (RESAC), and a wide range of community stakeholders. Executive-level coordination meetings with local government leadership ensured alignment on planning priorities, mitigation strategies, and plan adoption across jurisdictions. These efforts strengthened the plan's multi-jurisdictional nature and reinforced regional collaboration throughout the planning process. Public engagement opportunities included multiple public meetings and open house events held at accessible community locations across the Borough, as well as a formal 30-day public comment period. These opportunities allowed residents to review plan content, provide feedback, and contribute local knowledge regarding hazards and vulnerabilities. Public outreach was further expanded through a Mayor’s Office press release, local media coverage, and a sustained social media campaign across Facebook and Instagram platforms. In addition, printed outreach materials, including public meeting and 30-day public comment flyers, were posted at high-visibility community locations throughout the Borough (e.g., libraries, community centers, local businesses, and public facilities) to increase visibility and reach residents who may not engage through digital platforms. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-62 Page 456 of 1055 Collectively, these outreach and engagement activities ensured continuous stakeholder involvement, broad public awareness, and meaningful opportunities for input, resulting in a hazard mitigation plan that reflects regional priorities, incorporates local knowledge, and supports coordinated implementation across jurisdictions. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix B-63 Page 457 of 1055 Appendix C. Public Participation Surveys Appendix C documents the public and stakeholder survey efforts conducted in support of the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ- HMP) update. These surveys were implemented as part of a multi-phased public participation strategy designed to gather input at key stages of the planning process, including hazard identification, risk perception, vulnerability assessment, mitigation action development, and prioritization. Surveys were conducted between February and April 2026 and included a series of three community surveys and two stakeholder surveys. Each survey was structured to build upon the previous phase of engagement. Community Survey #1 focused on hazard awareness, past impacts, and preparedness challenges; Community Survey #2 gathered input on mitigation priorities, preferred strategies, and implementation concerns; and Community Survey #3 validated hazard rankings. Stakeholder Survey #1 solicited input on capabilities, infrastructure needs, and implementation barriers, while Survey #2 further evaluated the feasibility of mitigation and partnership opportunities. A total of 254 community responses and 10 stakeholder responses were received across all surveys. Survey distribution was supported through social media outreach, digital platforms, and direct stakeholder engagement, ensuring broad accessibility and participation across the borough. Survey questions were designed to capture input on hazard impacts, infrastructure vulnerabilities, mitigation preferences, and barriers to preparedness, including considerations of access and functional needs (AFN), rural and road-limited populations, and communication challenges. Survey results were used throughout the plan to ensure that local knowledge and community priorities informed decision-making. Specifically: • Community input on hazard concerns and impacts supported the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (Chapter 4) • Responses identifying vulnerabilities and service disruptions informed the Vulnerability Assessment (Chapter 4) • Feedback on mitigation priorities, implementation barriers, and resource needs directly informed the Mitigation Strategy and Action Plan (Chapter 11) Collectively, these surveys demonstrate a coordinated, data-informed approach to public participation, ensuring that the MJ-HMP reflects both technical analysis and the experiences, priorities, and needs of residents, stakeholders, and partner organizations across the FNSB. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-1 Page 458 of 1055 C.1. Social Media Postings C.1.1 Community Survey #1: Facebook Survey Flyer, February 6, 2026, 11:20 AM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-2 Page 459 of 1055 C.1.2 Community Survey #1: Instagram Reel, February 19, 2026, 11:56 AM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-3 Page 460 of 1055 C.1.3 Community Survey #1: Facebook Reel, February 19, 2026, 11:56 AM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-4 Page 461 of 1055 C.1.4 Community Survey #2: Instagram Flyer, March 19, 2026, 5:59 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-5 Page 462 of 1055 C.1.5 Community Survey #2: Facebook Flyer, March 19, 2026, 6:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-6 Page 463 of 1055 C.1.6 Community Survey #3: Facebook Flyer, April 9, 2026, 6:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-7 Page 464 of 1055 C.1.7 Community Survey #3: Instagram Flyer, April 9, 2026, 6:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-8 Page 465 of 1055 C.1.8 Community Survey #2: Instagram Flyer, April 10, 2026, 1:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-9 Page 466 of 1055 C.1.9 Community Survey #2: Facebook Flyer, April 10, 2026, 5:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-10 Page 467 of 1055 C.1.10 Community Survey #2: Instagram Flyer, April 24, 2026, 1:30 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-11 Page 468 of 1055 C.1.11 Community Survey #2: Facebook Flyer, April 24, 2026, 3:13 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-12 Page 469 of 1055 C.1.12 Community Survey #3: Instagram Flyer, April 25, 2026, 5:01 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-13 Page 470 of 1055 C.1.13 Community Survey #3: Facebook Flyer, April 26, 2026, 7:00 PM FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-14 Page 471 of 1055 Table C-1: Social Media Posts Statistics Social Media Post Reach Interactions / LinkClicks Time Watch Follows & Likes Reactions Comments Shares Saves Posts: Survey Date Views Community Survey 2/6/26 5,990 N/A 32 22 1 11 7 12 3 #1: Facebook Flyer Community Survey 2/19/26 387 302 8 40m 0 7 0 0 0 #1: Instagram Reel 46S Community Survey 2/19/26 4,668 N/A 64 17/ 1 45 11 7 1 #1: Facebook Reel 10h 21m Community Survey 3/19/26 240 145 6 N/A 0 5 0 0 0 #2: Instagram Flyer Community Survey 3/19/26 2,978 N/A 19 8 1 7 0 11 1 #2: Facebook Flyer Community Survey 4/9/26 3,173 N/A 16 12 1 9 1 6 0 #3: Facebook Flyer Community Survey 4/9/26 187 110 3 N/A 0 3 0 0 0 #3: Instagram Flyer Community Survey 4/10/26 179 119 1 N/A 0 1 0 0 0 #2: Instagram Flyer Community Survey 4/10/26 1,679 N/A 3 3 0 2 0 1 0 #2: Facebook Flyer Community Survey 4/24/26 148 104 5 N/A 0 2 0 3 0 #2: Instagram Flyer Community Survey 4/24/26 881 N/A 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 #2: Facebook Flyer Community Survey 4/25/26 210 125 1 N/A 0 1 0 0 0 #3: Instagram Flyer Community Survey 4/26/26 1,423 N/A 4 2 1 2 0 2 0 #3: Facebook Flyer Totals 22,143 905 165 65 / 5 97 19 43 5 11h 1m 46s FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-15 Page 472 of 1055 C.2. Community Survey #1 C.2.1 Your Voice on Local Hazards Questions FNSB MJ-HMP Community Survey 1 Your Voice on Local Hazards Thank you for taking part in this community survey! The Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) is updating its Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP), which helps us understand local hazards and reduce the impacts of flooding, wildfire, earthquakes, severe weather, and other risks in our area. Your input is an important part of this update and helps ensure the plan reflects real community experiences and priorities. This survey only takes a few minutes. Your feedback will guide future projects and help make our neighborhoods safer and more resilient. Thank you for sharing your voice and helping shape the future of our community! Rate your level of concern for each hazard. (Please select one per row.) Not Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Concerned Active Threat (Active Shooter / Workplace Violence) Cryosphere / Permafrost Thaw Cyber Attack Earthquakes Flooding Ground Failure (Landslide / Erosion) HAZMAT Incident Severe Weather FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-16 Page 473 of 1055 Terrorism How have these hazards affected you, your household, or your neighborhood in the past five (5) years? (Please select all that apply.) Access to medical care Air quality/smoke issues Disruption to work/school Economic or income loss Evacuation or sheltering Power outages Property damage Road closures Water/sewer disruptions Other (Please Describe) Describe hazards you’ve personally experienced in FNSB. Identify vulnerable neighborhoods or areas in FNSB. Which challenges make it harder for your household to prepare for or respond to emergencies? (Please select all that apply.) Access or functional needs (AFN) Distance from services Lack of information Language or communication barriers Limited financial resources FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-17 Page 474 of 1055 Limited time Limited transportation Other (Please Describe) Have you noticed any changes in hazard frequency or severity in your area? (Examples: stronger winds, more flooding, thawing ground, severe winter events.) ❒ Yes ❒ No ❒ Unsure If yes, please describe. Are you aware of local shelters, alerts, or evacuation routes? (Please select one per row.) Yes No Unsure Alerts Evacuation Routes Local Shelters Which types of infrastructure in your area do you believe are most vulnerable to hazards? (Please select all that apply.) Communication systems Emergency services access Homes and buildings Powerlines and utilities Roads and bridges Water and wastewater systems Other (Please Describe) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-18 Page 475 of 1055 What are your preferred communication methods? (Please select all that apply.) Borough Website Community Bulletin Boards Email Mailers Public Meetings (Start in March) Social Media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram) Text Message Other (Please Describe) Thank you for taking this survey. Please drop it in a designated drop box, mail it to FNSB EM (MJ-HMP), PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707, or email it to EmergencyManagement@fnsb.gov. You may view the plan updates at FNSB MJ-HMP. Sign up for Emergency Alerts by texting "FNSBALERT" to 67283. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-19 Page 476 of 1055 C.2.2 Your Voice on Local Hazards Questions (Revised) FNSB MJ-HMP Community Survey 1 Your Voice on Local Hazards Thank you for taking part in this community survey! The Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) is updating its Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP), which helps us understand local hazards and reduce the impacts of flooding, wildfire, earthquakes, severe weather, and other risks in our area. Your input is an important part of this update and helps ensure the plan reflects real community experiences and priorities. This survey only takes a few minutes. Your feedback will guide future projects and help make our neighborhoods safer and more resilient. Thank you for sharing your voice and helping shape the future of our community! Rate your level of concern for each hazard. (Please select one per row.) Not Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Concerned Active Threat (Active Shooter / Workplace Violence) Cryosphere / Permafrost Thaw Cyber Attack Earthquakes Flooding Ground Failure (Landslide / Erosion) HAZMAT Incident Severe Weather Terrorism Wildfires How have these hazards affected you, your household, or your neighborhood in the past five (5) years? (Please select all that apply.) Access to medical care Air quality/smoke issues Disruption to work/school Economic or income loss FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-20 Page 477 of 1055 Evacuation or sheltering Power outages Property damage Road closures Water/sewer disruptions Other (Please Describe) Describe hazards you’ve personally experienced in FNSB. Identify vulnerable neighborhoods or areas in FNSB. Which challenges make it harder for your household to prepare for or respond to emergencies? (Please select all that apply.) Access or functional needs (AFN) Distance from services Lack of information Language or communication barriers Limited financial resources Limited time Limited transportation Other (Please Describe) Have you noticed any changes in hazard frequency or severity in your area? (Examples: stronger winds, more flooding, thawing ground, severe winter events.) ❒ Yes ❒ No ❒ Unsure If yes, please describe. Are you aware of local shelters, alerts, or evacuation routes? (Please select one per row.) Yes No Unsure Alerts Evacuation Routes Local Shelters Which types of infrastructure in your area do you believe are most vulnerable to hazards? (Please select all that apply.) Communication systems Emergency services access Homes and buildings FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-21 Page 478 of 1055 Powerlines and utilities Roads and bridges Water and wastewater systems What are your preferred communication methods? (Please select all that apply.) Borough Website Community Bulletin Boards Email Mailers Newspaper Public Meetings (Start in March) Public Television Radio Social Media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram) Text Message Thank you for taking this survey. Please drop it in a designated drop box, mail it to FNSB EM (MJ-HMP), PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707, or email it to EmergencyManagement@fnsb.gov. You may view the plan updates at FNSB MJ-HMP. Sign up for Emergency Alerts by texting "FNSBALERT" to 67283. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-22 Page 479 of 1055 C.2.3 Your Voice on Local Hazards Results 153 community member responses (This survey changed in the middle to add wildfire. You will see wildfire mentioned in the responses prior to that change.) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-23 Page 480 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-24 Page 481 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-25 Page 482 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-26 Page 483 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-27 Page 484 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-28 Page 485 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-29 Page 486 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-30 Page 487 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-31 Page 488 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-32 Page 489 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-33 Page 490 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-34 Page 491 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-35 Page 492 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-36 Page 493 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-37 Page 494 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-38 Page 495 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-39 Page 496 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-40 Page 497 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-41 Page 498 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-42 Page 499 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-43 Page 500 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-44 Page 501 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-45 Page 502 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-46 Page 503 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-47 Page 504 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-48 Page 505 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-49 Page 506 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-50 Page 507 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-51 Page 508 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-52 Page 509 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-53 Page 510 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-54 Page 511 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-55 Page 512 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-56 Page 513 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-57 Page 514 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-58 Page 515 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-59 Page 516 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-60 Page 517 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-61 Page 518 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-62 Page 519 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-63 Page 520 of 1055 Results from Community Survey #1 were used to inform the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (Chapter 4) by validating locally perceived hazard risks and documenting community-reported impacts. Responses related to past hazard experiences, infrastructure vulnerabilities, and service disruptions informed the vulnerability assessment (Chapter 4), particularly in identifying areas of concern, impacts on critical systems, and community-specific challenges. Feedback regarding preparedness barriers, communication preferences, and access to resources was incorporated into the development of mitigation actions and public outreach strategies in Chapter 11 to ensure that proposed actions reflect community needs and improve accessibility and effectiveness. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-64 Page 521 of 1055 C.3. Community Survey #2 C.3.1 What Matters Most: Community Mitigation Survey Questions FNSB MJ-HMP Community Survey 2 What Matters Most: Community Mitigation Survey Thank you for returning to share your input as we continue updating the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s (FNSB's) Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP). In this phase, we’re asking residents to help rank mitigation priorities and provide feedback on preferred strategies, communication methods, and potential concerns related to implementation. Your insights help shape practical actions to reduce risk from hazards such as flooding, wildfire, earthquakes, severe weather, and permafrost-related impacts. This follow-up survey focuses on community preferences, what projects matter most, what preparedness resources would be helpful, how information is best shared, and what challenges or barriers may affect mitigation efforts. Your feedback builds on earlier surveys and helps ensure the final plan reflects the needs and experiences of people who live and work in the Borough. Thank you for taking a few minutes to guide our next steps and support a more resilient Interior Alaska. Which location best describes your primary residence? (Please select one.) ❒ City of Fairbanks ❒ Badger ❒ Chatanika ❒ Chena Hot Springs ❒ Chena Ridge ❒ College ❒ Eielson ❒ Ester ❒ Farmers Loop ❒ Fort Wainwright ❒ Fox ❒ Goldstream ❒ Harding-Birch Lake ❒ Murphy Dome ❒ North Pole ❒ Pleasant Valley ❒ Salcha ❒ Steele Creek ❒ Two Rivers ❒ University ❒ Himalaya / Haystack ❒ Other: Which best describes where you work? (Please select one.) ❒ City of Fairbanks ❒ City of North Pole ❒ Fort Wainwright ❒ Eielson Air Force Base ❒ University of Alaska, Fairbanks ❒ Unincorporated Borough (Outside City Limits, Bases, & University ❒ Rural / Road-Limited Area ❒ Other FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-65 Page 522 of 1055 Rank the top five mitigation actions. Write a number in the left column starting at 1 and finishing at 15. (Mitigation Action: A specific project, program, policy, or activity designed to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people, property, and the environment from identified hazards.) Communications and Alerting System Upgrades Community Preparedness and Education Programs Drainage Improvements Earthquake Retrofits Energy and Power Reliability Projects Evacuation Route and Shelter Improvements Fire Service Areas/EMS Coverage Flood Protection Ground Failure and Subsidence Mitigation Hazardous Materials / Pipeline / Industrial Safety Permafrost / Cryosphere Mitigation Public Health and Air Quality Resilience Severe Weather Preparedness Transportation and Infrastructure Hardening Wildfire Mitigation When thinking about mitigation actions, what is most important to you? (Please select up to two items.) Protecting Critical Infrastructure (Roads, Utilities, Hospitals) Protecting Homes and Private Property Protecting Natural Resources Protecting Vulnerable Populations Reducing Disruption to Daily Life and Services Reducing Evacuation Time or Improving Access/Egress Reducing Response and Recovery Costs Other (Please Specify) Which mitigation approaches do you generally support? (Please select all that apply.) Education and Outreach Program Grants or Financial Incentives for Homeowners Natural Systems Protection (Floodplains, Buffers) Public Infrastructure Mitigation Projects Updated Building and Development Standards Voluntary Property Buyouts in High-Risk Areas Unsure FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-66 Page 523 of 1055 Do you have any concerns about implementing mitigation actions? (Please select all that apply.) Cost (Upfront or ongoing costs for residents, businesses, or local government.) Construction Impacts (Temporary disruptions such as traffic delays, noise, access limitations, or displacement.) Equity and Fairness (Concerns about whether mitigation actions are affordable, accessible, or fairly distributed.) Lack of Information or Understanding (Unclear benefits, eligibility, or how mitigation actions work.) Maintenance or Long-Term Upkeep (Concerns about who is responsible for maintaining mitigation projects over time.) Property Rights or Land Use Restrictions (Concerns about regulations or restrictions affecting private property.) No Concerns What would help reduce or address these concerns? (Please select all that apply.) Advance Notice and Coordination During Construction Clear Information on Benefits and Effectiveness Financial Assistance or Incentives Technical Assistance Voluntary or Phased Implementation What would help you become better prepared? (Please select all that apply.) Accessible (AFM-Friendly) Preparedness Resources Backup Power and Heating Options Communication Options During Outages Emergency Alerts and Warnings Emergency Supplies / 14-Day Kit Guidance Evacuation Information Family or Workplace Emergency Planning Resources Home Hardening Guidance Hazard-Specific Guides (Smoke, Permafrost, Extreme Cold, etc.) Insurance and Property Risk Guidance Neighborhood-Specific Hazard Maps/Information Shelter Locations and Pet Sheltering Information Training Volunteer Opportunities Workplace Exercises FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-67 Page 524 of 1055 What prevents you from taking preparedness or mitigation actions right now? (Please select all that apply.) Cost Lack of Information Mitigation Actions Feel Overwhelming Nothing Prevents Me Physical Limitations Rental Property / Lack of Authority Time Unsure What Actions Are Most Effective Do you know where to find more information on preparedness? (Please select one.) ❒ Yes ❒ No If you answered YES: Where do you typically find preparedness information? (Please select all that apply.) Borough or City’s Website Community Classes or Events FEMA or Ready.gov Friends, Family, or Coworkers Local Emergency Management or Fire Department Social Media (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) State of Alaska (e.g., Ready Alaska, DHS&EM) If you answered NO: What would be the most helpful way for you to receive preparedness information? (Please select all that apply.) Community Classes or Workshops Email or Text Alerts Local Events or Presentations News or Radio Printed Materials (Flyers, Brochures) Social Media Posts Website or Online Resources If we conducted a quarterly preparedness course, would you attend? (This would be a 1-3 hour in-person or virtual class offered quarterly, focused on a specific preparedness topic, such as wildfire readiness, severe weather, evacuation planning, or household emergency preparedness. The goal would be to provide practical, actionable information participants can apply immediately.) ❒ Yes ❒ No FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-68 Page 525 of 1055 If you answered YES: What topics would you most like more information about? (Please rank from 1 to 10, with number one being your top choice.) Alerts and Warnings Caring for Access and Functional Needs Caring for Pets or Livestock Earthquake Retrofits Emergency Kits and Supplies Evacuation Planning Flood Mitigation Generator Safety Wildfire Preparedness Winter Storms and Extreme Cold Which communication method has worked best so far? (Please only select one.) Borough Website Community Bulletin Boards Email Mailers Newspaper Public Meetings Public Television Radio Social Media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram) Text Messages Which method of communication do you find least effective? (Please only select one.) Borough Website Community Bulletin Boards Email Mailers Newspaper Public Meetings Public Television Radio Social Media (i.e., Facebook, Instagram) Text Message Would you like to stay involved? ❒ Yes ❒ No If yes, please provide your preferred contact information. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-69 Page 526 of 1055 Comments Thank you for taking this survey. Please drop it in a designated drop box, mail it to FNSB EM (MJ-HMP), PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707, or email it to EmergencyManagement@fnsb.gov. You may view the plan updates at FNSB MJ-HMP. Sign up for Emergency Alerts by texting "FNSBALERT" to 67283. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-70 Page 527 of 1055 C.3.2 What Matters Most: Community Mitigation Survey Results 47 community member responses FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-71 Page 528 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-72 Page 529 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-73 Page 530 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-74 Page 531 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-75 Page 532 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-76 Page 533 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-77 Page 534 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-78 Page 535 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-79 Page 536 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-80 Page 537 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-81 Page 538 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-82 Page 539 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-83 Page 540 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-84 Page 541 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-85 Page 542 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-86 Page 543 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-87 Page 544 of 1055 Results from Community Survey #2 were used to support development and prioritization of mitigation actions in Chapter 11. Community rankings of mitigation strategies, preferred approaches, and identified concerns, such as cost, equity, and implementation feasibility, were incorporated into the mitigation action plan and prioritization framework. Feedback on preparedness needs, communication methods, and resource gaps informed outreach and education strategies, ensuring that mitigation actions align with community preferences and are supported by practical, accessible implementation approaches. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-88 Page 545 of 1055 C.4. Community Survey #3 C.4.1 FNSB / MJ-HMP Hazard Ranking Questions Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Ranking Please rank the following hazards from one (1) to five (5), with one being your top concern and five being the least concerning. Please do not duplicate the ranking. Hazard Ranking Fire (Wildland & Urban) Severe Weather (Wind, Snow, Freezing Rain in Winter, Lightning, Thunderstorms) Flooding (Riverine, Ice Dams, Ponding, Levee Break, Dam Failure) Seismic (Earthquake) Ground Failure (Erosion, Landslides, Sink Holes, Permafrost (Cryosphere)) Please mark below which area is your primary residence. If other, please write in the space below: Other: FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-89 Page 546 of 1055 C.4.2 FNSB / MJ-HMP Hazard Ranking Results 44 community member responses FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-90 Page 547 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-91 Page 548 of 1055 Results from Community Survey #3 were used to validate hazard rankings presented in the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (Chapter 4). Community input on relative hazard concern provided additional support for prioritizing hazards in the plan and helped confirm alignment between technical risk analysis and public perception. These findings were considered in the overall hazard prioritization process and supported the development of mitigation strategies that reflect both quantitative risk data and community priorities. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-92 Page 549 of 1055 C.5 Stakeholder Survey #1 C.5.1 Hazard Impacts and Mitigation Priorities Survey Questions FNSB MJ-HMP Stakeholder Survey 1 Hazard Impacts and Mitigation Priorities Survey Thank you for participating in this Stakeholder Mitigation Actions and Capabilities Survey. The Fairbanks North Star Borough is updating its Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ- HMP), a FEMA-required plan that identifies our region’s major hazards and outlines strategies to reduce risk across the Borough, the City of Fairbanks, and the City of North Pole. Your organization’s insight is essential to understanding vulnerabilities, operational challenges, and the resources needed to support effective mitigation actions. This survey focuses on your sector’s capabilities, priorities, and potential partnerships. Your feedback will directly inform the updated mitigation strategy and help shape practical, achievable actions that strengthen community resilience and support continuity of operations across the region. We appreciate your time and participation in this important planning effort. All submittals are anonymous. Which category best describes your role? (Please select one.) ❒ Business Owner ❒ Healthcare ❒ Local Government ❒ Nonprofit ❒ Resident ❒ Utility Provider ❒ Other (Please Specify) ________________________________________________ List critical facilities or infrastructure that need priority mitigation. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-93 Page 550 of 1055 What barriers may prevent effective mitigation? (Please select all that apply.) Coordination Funding Public Awareness Regulatory Constraints Staffing Technical Limitations Other (Please Specify) Share early mitigation action ideas for your sector or facilities. What resources or support would help your organization participate effectively? Rate the Borough’s current ability to reduce hazard risks. (Please select one.) ❒ Not Effective ❒ Slightly Effective ❒ Moderately Effective ❒ Effective ❒ Very Effective Explain your rating and suggest improvements. List opportunities for collaboration or joint projects (partners, scopes). FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-94 Page 551 of 1055 Thank you for taking this survey. Please drop it in a designated drop box, mail it to FNSB EM (MJ-HMP), PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707, or email it to EmergencyManagement@fnsb.gov. You may view the plan updates at FNSB MJ-HMP. Sign up for Emergency Alerts by texting "FNSBALERT" to 67283. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-95 Page 552 of 1055 C.5.2 Hazard Impacts and Mitigation Priorities Survey Results 10 stakeholder responses FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-96 Page 553 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-97 Page 554 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-98 Page 555 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-99 Page 556 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-100 Page 557 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-101 Page 558 of 1055 FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-102 Page 559 of 1055 Results from Stakeholder Survey #1 were used to inform the capability assessment and the development of the mitigation strategy in Chapter 11. Stakeholders' input on critical infrastructure needs, operational challenges, and barriers to mitigation, such as funding, staffing, and regulatory constraints, was incorporated into the capability assessment and used to refine mitigation actions. Responses identifying partnership opportunities and resource needs supported development of regionally coordinated mitigation projects and strengthened alignment between local government, agencies, and community partners. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-103 Page 560 of 1055 C.6 Stakeholder Survey #2 C.6.1 Mitigation Feasibility and Partnership Survey Questions FNSB MJ-HMP Stakeholder Survey 2 Mitigation Feasibility and Partnerships Survey Thank you for participating in this second-round stakeholder survey. As the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) continues updating its Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ- HMP), we are now gathering more detailed input on the feasibility of proposed mitigation actions and opportunities for interagency coordination and partnership. Your organization’s perspective is essential to shaping actions that are realistic, technically sound, and aligned with local capabilities. This survey focuses on identifying practical challenges, resource needs, and opportunities for collaboration to strengthen mitigation efforts across the Borough, the City of Fairbanks, and the City of North Pole. Your feedback will help refine the mitigation action plan and support projects that reduce risk, enhance operational continuity, and improve overall community resilience. Thank you for your time and continued partnership in this important planning process. Which draft mitigation actions does your organization support most strongly, and why? Which implementation challenges do you foresee? (Please select all that apply.) Equipment Funding Permitting Public Opposition Staffing Supply Chain Technical Constraints FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-104 Page 561 of 1055 Other (Please Specify) What regulatory, procedural, or technical changes would help implementation? What data, maps, or assessments would help you understand impacts on your facilities/operations? Are you willing to collaborate on joint mitigation projects? ❒ Yes ❒ No If yes, with whom and on what scope? What near-term (1–2 year) actions can your organization commit to? Which actions should be coordinated at the Borough/Regional level rather than individually? Thank you for taking this survey. Please drop it in a designated drop box, mail it to FNSB EM (MJ-HMP), PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707, or email it to EmergencyManagement@fnsb.gov. You may view the plan updates at FNSB MJ-HMP. Sign up for Emergency Alerts by texting "FNSBALERT" to 67283. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-105 Page 562 of 1055 C.6.2 Mitigation Feasibility and Partnership Survey Results 0 stakeholder responses No responses were received for Stakeholder Survey #2 during the distribution period. However, similar information related to mitigation feasibility, implementation challenges, and partnership opportunities was obtained through Stakeholder Survey #1, stakeholder meetings, and direct coordination with partner agencies. These combined inputs were used to refine mitigation actions in Chapter 11, with a focus on project feasibility, interagency coordination, and realistic implementation considerations. Despite limited responses to Stakeholder Survey #2, sufficient stakeholder input was obtained through earlier surveys, stakeholder meetings, and direct coordination to support development of the mitigation strategy and ensure compliance with FEMA participation requirements. Collectively, these survey efforts demonstrate a multi-phased public participation process that informed hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and the development of mitigation strategies, ensuring that the MJ-HMP reflects both technical analysis and community and stakeholder input. Collectively, the survey efforts documented in Appendix C demonstrate a comprehensive, multi-phased public participation process conducted throughout the MJ-HMP update. Input from community members and stakeholders informed all major components of the plan, including hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and mitigation strategy development. Survey responses, combined with stakeholder meetings and ongoing coordination with jurisdictional partners, ensured that the plan reflects local knowledge, operational considerations, and community priorities. This documented process supports FEMA requirements for public involvement and demonstrates that the FNSB MJ-HMP update was developed through an inclusive, data-informed, and collaborative approach. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix C-106 Page 563 of 1055 Appendix D. Draft Plan Review 30-Day Public Comment Responses (May 29th to June 28th) This appendix documents public comments received during the draft plan review period (May 29, 2026, through June 28, 2026) for the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) Update. All comments were reviewed and evaluated by the planning team in coordination with participating jurisdictions and partner agencies. Where applicable, comments were incorporated into the final plan to improve technical accuracy, internal consistency, clarity, and alignment with community priorities and current best available data. This appendix provides a transparent record of stakeholder and public input and demonstrates how comments were reviewed, addressed, and incorporated in accordance with FEMA requirements for plan updates (44 CFR §201.6). Responses to each comment, including resulting actions, are summarized in the table below. Disposition Reference: • Incorporated → Plan revised directly in response to comment • Partially Incorporated → Comment resulted in limited or partial changes • Addressed → Comment acknowledged and clarified; no substantial change required • Not Incorporated → No change made (justification provided) • Acknowledged → Comment received with no specific recommendation ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action PC- 05/27/26 AS Email The reviewer noted Incorporated The MAP tables were 1 that the Mitigation comprehensively revised to meet Action Plan (MAP) FEMA requirements (44 CFR tables did not §201.6(c)(3)) and the 2025 Local consistently meet FEMA Mitigation Planning Policy Guide. requirements. Required elements—including lead Specifically, actions and supporting agencies, lacked sufficient detail implementation actions, to support timeframes, prioritization implementation, considerations, and tracking tracking, and grant components—were incorporated development. Missing across all MAP tables. These elements included: updates improve implementation FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-1 Page 564 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action • Clear clarity, accountability, and identification of alignment with grant development lead vs. and plan maintenance processes. supporting agencies • Defined implementation steps • Funding sources and resource considerations • Priority levels, timeframes, and measurable outcomes • Clear ownership across multiple jurisdictions and partners PC- 05/27/26 AS Email The reviewer noted Incorporated The plan was revised to 2 that while strengthen the treatment of transportation is transportation as a critical lifeline correctly identified as a and interdependent system. critical lifeline, the plan Revisions included: does not sufficiently • Expanded narrative address: describing transportation • Specific dependencies and transportation cascading impacts systems • Clarification of how (highways, transportation disruptions bridges, airport, affect: rail) o Fuel and supply • Failure modes delivery and o Emergency response dependencies and access • The role of o Utility restoration transportation in and continuity of cascading operations impacts (fuel, • Improved integration of food, emergency transportation response, considerations into: utilities) FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-2 Page 565 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action o Risk and vulnerability discussion (Chapter 4) o Infrastructure/lifeline mitigation actions (MAP tables) • Additional detail incorporated where appropriate while maintaining a public-facing level of sensitivity These updates improve alignment between identified risks and actionable mitigation planning. PC- 05/27/26 AS Email The reviewer noted Incorporated The Severe Weather hazard 3 that the plan identifies characterization was revised to severe weather as a better reflect both direct impacts high-probability hazard, and broader operational but classifies its extent consequences. as “Limited,” which Revisions included: does not reflect: • Update to Table 4-2 • Borough-wide (Hazard Frequency and operational Extent Summary): impacts o Severe Weather • Cascading extent was revised effects on from “Limited” to lifelines (power, “Limited to High” at transportation, both: communications) ▪ Borough (FNSB) level ▪ Community level • Expanded discussion within the Severe Weather Hazard Profile to: o Better describe cascading impacts to lifelines, including power, transportation, and FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-3 Page 566 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action communications systems o Clarify that: ▪ Physical damage may often be localized ▪ Operational and system impacts can extend across the borough • Enhanced alignment between hazard profile narrative and summary risk classifications These updates ensure that the hazard extent classification reflects the full range of impacts, including both localized physical damage and broader system disruptions, consistent with FEMA risk assessment guidance. PC- 05/27/26 AS Email The reviewer noted Incorporated The Social Vulnerability Index 4 that the plan (SVI) analysis was updated to referenced 2016 SVI reflect the most current available data as the most recent CDC/ATSDR dataset. available, which is Revisions included: outdated given newer • Integration of updated SVI CDC/ATSDR datasets data (2018–2022 ACS- (e.g., 2022). based dataset) • Updated maps and supporting analysis in Chapter 4 • Alignment of vulnerability discussion with: o Current demographic trends o Population shifts and housing patterns • Removal of outdated language indicating that FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-4 Page 567 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action 2016 data was the most recent These updates ensure the risk assessment reflects current social vulnerability conditions consistent with FEMA guidance. PC- 05/27/26 AS Email The reviewer noted Addressed The plan was revised to clarify the 5 that the plan includes distinction between FEMA- non-natural hazards required hazard mitigation (e.g., cyber, supply elements and broader resilience chain, LNG, active considerations. threat) but does not Revisions included: clearly distinguish: • Clear explanatory language • FEMA-required distinguishing: natural hazards o Natural hazards • Broader (FEMA-compliant resilience or risk assessment) emergency o Non-natural hazards management and resilience risks risks • Clarification that non- natural hazards are: o Included to support community resilience and emergency management planning o Not part of the formal FEMA hazard risk assessment • Improved alignment between: o Risk Assessment (Chapter 4) o Mitigation Strategy and MAP (Chapters 10–11) This structure ensures compliance with FEMA requirements while retaining important cross-sector risk context. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-5 Page 568 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action PC- 05/27/26 AS Email The reviewer Partially These tools were already 6 recommended Incorporated incorporated into Appendix A as including: part of the Plan Maintenance • Annual Review Documentation. Questionnaire Revisions included • Mitigation Action • Alignment of these tools Progress Report with the plan maintenance as appendices rather process (Chapter 11) than separate This ensures that future users can documents. locate and apply the same tools during annual reviews and updates. PC- 05/27/26 AS Email The reviewer identified Addressed A comprehensive quality-control 7 issues with: and editorial review was • Table/figure conducted prior to plan numbering finalization. • Chapter Revisions included: references • Correction of: • Outdated or o Table, figure, and legacy content appendix numbering • Internal o Cross-references consistency and internal links across the • Removal or update of document legacy content from prior plan versions • Alignment of dates, datasets, and terminology throughout the document • Standardization of formatting for clarity and usability These updates improve plan readability, technical defensibility, and usability across agencies and stakeholders. PC- 05/27/26 JG Email The reviewer requested Not The Annual Review Questionnaire 8 that the Annual Review Incorporated is already available as a fillable Questionnaire be form. The version provided during provided as a fillable the review period was distributed form to improve for stakeholder review and usability. feedback on functionality and FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-6 Page 569 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action content. No changes to format were necessary. PC- 05/27/26 JG Email The reviewer noted Incorporated The SVI analysis was updated to 9 that updated SVI data reflect the most current available is available and should CDC/ATSDR dataset. be incorporated into Revisions included: the plan. • Integration of updated SVI data (2018–2022 ACS- based dataset) • Updated maps and supporting analysis in Chapter 4 • Alignment of vulnerability discussion with: o Current demographic trends o Population shifts and housing patterns • Removal of outdated language indicating that 2016 data was the most recent These updates ensure the risk assessment reflects current social vulnerability conditions consistent with FEMA guidance. PC- 05/27/26 JG Email The reviewer noted Addressed The acronym ICHR was defined as 10 that the acronym ICHR Ignition Component Hazard Rating was not defined in within Table 4-4 and added to the Table 4-4. plan’s acronym list. This revision improves technical clarity and consistency across the document. PC- 05/27/26 JG Email The reviewer requested Partially The risk scoring methodology was 11 clarification on how risk Incorporated expanded within the Risk scores are calculated Assessment section to improve and what they clarity and transparency. represent. Revisions included: • Additional explanation of how hazard risk scores are developed FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-7 Page 570 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action • Expanded description of scoring factors and assumptions • Improved linkage between hazard scoring and vulnerability assessment While additional detail was incorporated, further simplification of the scoring methodology was limited in order to maintain technical accuracy and consistency with FEMA-aligned risk assessment approaches. PC- 05/27/26 JG Email The reviewer noted Addressed The Table of Contents was 12 issues with Table of updated to correct navigation and Contents (TOC) links internal linking issues. and navigation. Revisions ensured: • Accurate page references • Functional internal links (digital version) • Consistency with final document formatting These updates improve usability and navigation for both reviewers and future plan users. PC- 05/29/26 FC Email The reviewer noted a Addressed The incorrect reference in the first 13 reference error in the paragraph on page 2-19 was first paragraph on page reviewed and corrected. The 2-19. erroneous placeholder reference (“Error! Reference source not found.”) was removed and replaced with the appropriate table citation. This revision improves document accuracy and ensures internal references are functional and consistent. PC- 05/29/26 FC Email The reviewer noted Incorporated The Tanana Chiefs Conference 14 that the Tanana Chiefs (TCC) leadership information was Conference (TCC) Chief updated in Table 3-2 (Community listed in the plan was Administration Contacts) to reflect outdated and should be FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-8 Page 571 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action updated to Sharon the current Chief, Sharon Hildebrand. Hildebrand. This update ensures the plan reflects current leadership and maintains accuracy of partner organization information. PC- 06/02/26 Online The reviewer indicated Acknowledged No changes were made to the 15 Comment they had reviewed the plan as no specific comments or Form draft plan but did not recommendations were provided. provide specific The response was documented as comments or part of the public outreach and suggested revisions. engagement process, The respondent demonstrating participation in the indicated uncertainty 30-day public review period. regarding whether mitigation actions reflect community needs but did not provide additional detail or recommendations. PC- 06/03/26 Online The reviewer indicated Acknowledged No changes were made to the 16 Comment they had reviewed the plan as no comments or Form draft plan but did not recommendations were provided. provide any comments, The response was recorded as suggested revisions, or part of the public comment additional mitigation process and contributes to actions. documentation of stakeholder outreach and engagement. PC- 06/03/26 EG Email The reviewer provided Incorporated The ACCAP winter rain policy brief 17 a draft ACCAP (Alaska was reviewed and incorporated Center for Climate into the plan to strengthen Assessment and discussion of freezing rain and Preparedness) policy severe winter weather impacts. brief summarizing Revisions included: research on winter rain • Expanded description of impacts in Interior winter rain (freezing rain) Alaska and suggested it as a compound hazard as a resource for within the Severe Weather strengthening the Hazard Profile plan’s freezing rain • Integration of documented discussion. impacts, including: FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-9 Page 572 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action o Transportation hazards and prolonged icy road conditions o Power outages from snow/ice loading on infrastructure o Increased emergency response demand and delayed response times o Supply chain and delivery disruptions • Incorporation of findings from recent events (e.g., 2021 “Icemageddon”) to support real-world context These updates improve the plan’s ability to reflect emerging climate- driven hazards and align with current regional research and stakeholder input. PC- 06/03/26 EG Email The reviewer offered Addressed The planning team coordinated 18 continued coordination, with ACCAP representatives including participation during the public comment period in stakeholder and incorporated relevant findings meetings and future into the plan. Ongoing technical discussion or collaboration with ACCAP and presentation of the University of Alaska Fairbanks ACCAP research on partners will continue during plan winter rain impacts. implementation and future updates, as appropriate. This coordination supports integration of current research, emerging hazard trends, and climate-informed risk into hazard mitigation planning. PC- 06/05/26 EG Email The reviewer provided Incorporated Updated graphics provided by the 19 updated graphics from ACCAP were incorporated into the the Alaska Center for plan to replace existing figures Climate Assessment and ensure current data, and Preparedness FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-10 Page 573 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action (ACCAP), including attribution, and organizational revised figures and branding. updated organizational Revisions included: branding/logo, for use • Replacement of all ACCAP- within the plan. related graphics with updated versions reflecting: o Current datasets (through 2025–2026 where available) o Updated visual formatting and labeling o Revised organizational branding (ACCAP as a NOAA RISA team) • Integration of updated figures supporting climate and hazard trends, including: o Long-term temperature trends o Smoke and air quality indicators o Precipitation and climate variability o Increasing frequency of winter rain events These updates improve the accuracy, clarity, and consistency of climate-informed hazard data presented in the plan and ensure alignment with current research and partner agency materials. Graphic updates were coordinated with ACCAP to ensure consistency with published data and proper attribution. PC- 6/14/26 Online The reviewer expressed Incorporated The recommendations and 20 Comment support for inclusion of supporting information provided Form freezing rain as a through the public comment form hazard and noted that were incorporated into the plan. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-11 Page 574 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action the plan accurately Actions taken include: reflects many • Integration of ACCAP policy associated challenges brief findings and and solutions. The suggested language into reviewer recommended Section 6.2.3 (Freezing incorporating additional Rain) information and • Expansion of hazard suggested language characterization, impacts, from a forthcoming and case study discussion ACCAP policy brief to for winter rain events strengthen Section • Inclusion of appropriate 6.2.3, and requested attribution to the Alaska appropriate citation if Center for Climate used. Assessment and Preparedness (ACCAP), as applicable This comment reinforces and documents formal public submission of technical input that was also provided through direct stakeholder coordination and email correspondence. PC- 06/15/26 EG Email The reviewer provided Incorporated Extensive updates were made to 21 detailed technical Section 6.2.3 (Freezing Rain) to comments, suggested incorporate the reviewer’s language, and a full suggested language, technical pre-publication ACCAP data, and supporting analysis policy brief to from the ACCAP winter rain policy strengthen the brief. discussion of freezing Revisions included: rain (winter rain), 1. Expanded Hazard particularly in Section Characterization 6.2.3 (Severe Weather • Enhanced description of – Freezing Rain). freezing rain as a high- impact, low-frequency hazard in the Interior • Added explanation of ice persistence throughout winter due to climatic conditions • Clarified formation processes and challenges FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-12 Page 575 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action associated with forecasting and mitigation 2. Integration of Documented Impacts The section was expanded to reflect real-world impacts identified in the ACCAP research, including: • Transportation disruption and prolonged hazardous road conditions • Increased emergency response demand and delayed response times • Power outages related to ice loading and vegetation impacts • School and business closures • Disruptions to delivery of essential goods and services • Wildlife impacts and human-wildlife interaction risks 3. Incorporation of Quantitative Data and Case Studies • Added supporting statistics and datasets related to: o Vehicle crashes during winter rain events o Power outage frequency and scale o Economic and operational impacts • Expanded discussion of historic events, including: o 2003 and 2010 freezing rain events FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-13 Page 576 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action o 2013 State/FEMA disaster event (DR-4162-AK) o December 2021 “Icemageddon” compound event 4. Recognition of Compound Hazard Dynamics • Updated language to emphasize compound event risk (freezing rain + snow + wind + extreme cold) • Improved linkage between freezing rain and cascading impacts across infrastructure systems 5. Plan Consistency and Technical Alignment • Updates reflect comparison and advancement from Draft 2 to Draft 3, ensuring: o Improved technical depth o Stronger alignment with current research and stakeholder input o Consistency across hazard profiles and climate-informed risk discussion These updates substantially strengthen the plan’s treatment of freezing rain and align with FEMA guidance to incorporate best available science, recent data, and locally relevant hazard impacts. Revisions also improved consistency between the Severe Weather Hazard Profile and FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-14 Page 577 of 1055 ID Date Disposition MJ-HMP Planning Team Source Comment Summary # Received Action broader climate trends discussed in the Risk Assessment. Summary of Public Comment Outcomes A total of 21 public comments were received during the 30-day review period through agency coordination, stakeholder email submissions, and the online public comment form. These comments reflect input from technical partners, subject matter experts, and members of the public. Overall, the comment process resulted in substantive improvements to the plan, particularly in the following areas: • Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) Enhancement: Comprehensive revisions were made to ensure FEMA compliance, including clearer identification of responsible agencies, implementation steps, prioritization, and funding considerations. • Hazard Characterization and Risk Assessment: Updates strengthened hazard profiles (notably severe weather and freezing rain), improved consistency between risk narratives and classifications, and enhanced treatment of cascading impacts to critical lifelines. • Integration of Current Data and Research: The plan was updated to incorporate the most recent Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) data and climate research, including technical contributions and datasets from the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Preparedness (ACCAP). • Climate and Emerging Hazard Context: Expanded discussion of compound and climate-driven hazards (e.g., winter rain events) improved alignment with current regional trends and best available science. • Plan Clarity, Organization, and Usability: Editorial and quality-control updates addressed formatting, numbering, cross-references, navigation, and overall document consistency. • Coordination and Partner Engagement: Comments from state, academic, and regional partners strengthened technical accuracy and reinforced ongoing collaboration for implementation and future updates. Approximately: • ~60% of comments were fully incorporated, resulting in direct plan revisions FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-15 Page 578 of 1055 • ~15% were partially incorporated • ~20% were addressed through clarification or editorial correction • A small number were not incorporated or acknowledged, primarily where no change was needed, or no actionable recommendation was provided No adverse or conflicting public comments were received that required significant policy changes or dispute resolution. Collectively, the public comment process improved the technical quality, FEMA compliance, and implementability of the MJ-HMP Update, while documenting meaningful stakeholder and public engagement consistent with federal planning requirements. FNSB Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Appendix D-16 Page 579 of 1055FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) Update Work Session Emergency Operations Briefing Nancy Durham, CFM, AKEM-E, NEMAA Page 580 of 1055 Emergency Manager Intro 2 Page 581 of 1055 Purpose of This Work Session • Provide an overview of the 2026 MJ-HMP Update • Review major changes since the 2021 Plan • Discuss FEMA and State planning requirements • Review mitigation priorities and implementation • Answer questions prior to the public hearing and adoption process 3 Page 582 of 1055 What Elected Officials Usually Ask Common Questions: • Why was the plan updated? • What changed since 2021? • Does this create new regulations? • Does adoption commit future funding? • What happens if we do not adopt it? • How was the public involved? • What does this mean for our community? 4 Page 583 of 1055 Why Update 5 Page 584 of 1055 FEMA Change Since 2021 • New Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide • Greater emphasis on implementation • Stronger public participation requirements • Enhanced risk assessment expectations 6 Page 585 of 1055 New State Requirements • Executive Summary Worksheet • Expanded Plan Review Tool • Hazard mitigation planning consistency requirements • Stronger documentation requirements 7 Page 586 of 1055 New Topics Added • Infrastructure Lifelines • Supply Chain Resilience • Social Vulnerability Index • Future Conditions • High Hazard Potential Dams (HHPD) • Urban Conflagration (Structure-to-Structure Fire) • Rain-In-Winter • Cryosphere / Permafrost (combined with Ground Failure) 8 Page 587 of 1055 What is New for Fairbanks, North Pole, and the Borough Fairbanks: • Continued evaluation of flooding • Urban conflagration analysis and severe weather added vulnerabilities • Critical facility reviews expanded • Lifeline dependencies evaluated Borough • Supply Chain Annex North Pole: • Permafrost/cryosphere • Utility and transportation integration resilience considerations • Expanded infrastructure analysis expanded • Updated wildfire risk assessment 9 Page 588 of 1055 What’s In the Plan 10 Page 589 of 1055 Risk Assessment Highlights The plan evaluates risks to: Primary Hazards: • People • Wildfire • Critical facilities • Severe weather • Utilities • Flooding • Transportation • Seismic (earthquakes) • Healthcare systems • Ground failure • Emergency Services (including permafrost) • Infrastructure lifelines 11 Page 590 of 1055 Mitigation Strategy Updates The updated plan includes: Focus: • 6 mitigation goals • Life safety • 28 mitigation actions • Infrastructure resilience • Responsible agencies • Emergency access identified • Continuity of operations • Funding sources • Risk-informed identified development • Prioritization criteria • Public preparedness established • Interagency coordination 12 Page 591 of 1055 Examples of Priority Actions • Critical facility backup power • Flood mitigation coordination • Infrastructure resilience projects • Emergency access improvements • Wildfire fuel reduction • Hazard mapping improvements • Lifeline and supply chain resilience 13 Page 592 of 1055 Why It Matters 14 Page 593 of 1055 Why Adoption Matters: Funding and Eligibility • FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) • Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) • Future mitigation funding opportunities • BRIC-eligible projects may not be fundable • Eligibility requires an approved FEMA-compliant plan Adoption does not guarantee grant funding but maintains eligibility to compete for those funds. 15 Page 594 of 1055 Public and Stakeholder Engagement 2026 Update Included: Highlights • 3 Public surveys • 254 public survey responses • 2 Stakeholder surveys • 10 stakeholder survey • 4 Public meetings responses • 3 Open houses • 38 outreach activities • 30-day public comment period • 21 comments received and • Agency and subject matter addressed expert review 16 Page 595 of 1055 Lessons Learned Since 2021 What We Learned Since the 2021 Plan: • Mitigation planning supports successful grant funding • Coordination across jurisdictions improved implementation • Wildfire remains a top risk • Infrastructure resilience continues to be a major priority • Supply chain resilience emerged as a new concern 17 Page 596 of 1055 Frequently Asked Questions Does the plan create new regulations? • No Does adoption commit funding? • No Does adoption require projects to be completed? • No Can projects change in the future? • Yes Why is the plan larger than the 2021 plan? • New FEMA and State requirements Can projects be added later? • Yes, through annual review and future updates 18 Page 597 of 1055 Implementation 19 Page 598 of 1055 Progress Since 2021 • Continued mitigation project implementation • Improved hazard data and mapping • Expanded coordination across jurisdictions Demonstrates plan is being used, not just adopted 20 Page 599 of 1055 2021 MJ-MP Successes: Slide 1 • Planning Integration Achieved • Incorporated mitigation into CEMP, CWPPs, and Borough planning processes • Wildfire Risk Reduction • Expanded fuels reduction, defensible space, and community outreach efforts • Improved Emergency Preparedness • Enhanced communications, backup power, and sheltering capabilities • Infrastructure Resilience Progress • Completed and advanced capital projects and maintenance improvements 21 Page 600 of 1055 2021 MJ-MP Successes: Slide 2 • Grant Utilization and Project Funding • Leveraged state and FEMA funding for mitigation projects • Strengthened Coordination • Improved interagency collaboration and stakeholder engagement → The 2021 plan successfully moved mitigation from planning into implementation, improving preparedness, infrastructure, and coordination. 22 Page 601 of 1055 Updated Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) Goals 1: Protect Life and Reduce Risk to Public Safety 2: Reduce Damage to Property, Infrastructure, and Critical Facilities 3: Improve Community Resilience and Continuity of → These goals support 28 Operations mitigation actions across the Borough, Fairbanks, 4: Promote Hazard-Aware Planning and Development and North Pole. 5: Increase Public Awareness and Support for Mitigation 6: Strengthen Interagency Coordination and Partnership 23 Page 602 of 1055 Process 24 Page 603 of 1055 Adoption Process • State approval (30-Days) • Formal Review 7/1/26 to 7/30/26 • Planning Commission Recommendation: 7/28/26 • City approvals • City of North Pole Presentation: 8/3/26 • City of Fairbanks Work Session: 8/4/26 • City of Fairbanks Public Hearing: 8/10/26 • City of North Pole Public Hearing: 8/17/26 • Assembly adoption • Introduction: 8/13/26 • Committee of the Whole: 8/20/26 • Public Hearing: 8/27/26 • FEMA approval (45-Days) • Formal Review: 7/31/26 to 8/14/26 25 Page 604 of 1055 Questions & Plan Information Website: FNSB.gov/mjhmp or FNSB.gov/hmp Webpage: 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Review 26 Page 605 of 1055 Contact Information Emergency Management Division Project Manager: Project Team: Nancy Durham Juanita Frazier (907) 459-1219 (907) 459-1453 Kim Streeter (907) 459-1220 Website: http://Fnsb.gov/mjhmp Email: EmergencyManagement@fnsb.gov 27 Page 606 of 1055 Fairbanks North Star Borough DEPARTMENT OF THE ASSEMBLY Boards and CommissionsClerks clerks@fnsb.gov Main: (907} 459-1401 Fax: (907} 459-1224 MEMORANDUM TO: Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly FROM: Kevin McKinley, Planning Commission Chafr('»r- CC: Kellen Spillman, Community Planning Director DATE: July 29, 2026 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 2026 DRAFT UPDATE OF THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN On July 28, 2026, the Planning Commission held a legislative hearing to consider a recommendation to the FNSB Assembly regarding the 2026 updated draft of the Mulit­Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) to be adopted as the updated official Hazard Mitigation Plan of the Borough. The Commission voted (8-0) to recommend adoption of the 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) to the FNSB Assembly. Physical: 907 Terminal St. Fairbanks, AK 99701 * Website: fnsb.gov * Mailing: PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707 Page 607 of 1055Planning Commission Meeting minutes of July 28, 2026 Page 608 of 1055PUBLIC HEARINGS AND LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS – continued G.2. Recommendation to the FNSB Assembly regarding the 2026 draft update of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJ-HMP) to be adopted as the updated official Hazard Mitigation Plan of the Borough. (Staff Contacts: Nancy Durham and Kayde Whiteside) Kellen Spillman, Community Planning Director; Nancy Durham, Emergency Operations Manager; and Kayde Whiteside, Long-Range Planner III, presented a staff report. Based on the staff analysis, staff requested recommendation of adoption of the plan to the Borough Assembly. Commissioners questioned staff on the following:  Risks specific to the unique Alaska cold weather environment; it was answered, listed in chapters four and seven.  Power grid at risk from earthquake damage; it was answered, yes.  Unusual weather events; it was answered, floods caused by winter warming and thawing as well as strong wind events.  Natural disasters the community is least prepared to mitigate; it was answered, earthquakes or floods in the winter.  Participation with local military installations; it was answered, there has been past participation but challenged with staff changes.  Emergency preparedness materials available to public; it was answered, public outreach at local events and annual emergency preparedness calendar.  Identification of critical infrastructure, their specific vulnerabilities, and recommended projects in the plan; it was answered, there is discussion of infrastructure but not details of critical facilities. Chair McKinley called for public testimony, there being none, public testimony was closed. CORBETT, moved to recommend adoption of the Seconded by MUEHLING 2026 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update to the Borough Assembly. Discussion ensued on the following:  Importance of maintaining health and safety of FNSB citizens.  Thorough plan that benefits the community.  Outreach efforts. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH July 28, 2026 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 Page 609 of 1055PUBLIC HEARINGS AND LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS – continued VOTE ON MOTION TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE 2026 MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN UPDATE TO THE BOROUGH ASSEMBLY. Yeses: Campbell, Ringstad, Muehling, Stepovich, Smart, Corbett, Rodriguez, McKinley Noes: None MOTION CARRIED 8 Yeses, 0 Noes H. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES H.1. Report from Commissioner Campbell and Kellen Spillman, Community Planning Director, on the Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation (FAST) Planning Technical Committee. Commissioner Campbell and Kellen Spillman, Community Planner Director, reported the adoption of the 2027-2028 FAST Improvement Program and spoke about Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) potential plans for the Fairbanks North Star Borough PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. I. EXCUSE ABSENT MEMBERS Commissioner Stepovich requested to be excused from the August 25, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Muehling requested an excused absence from the August 11, 2026 meeting due to travel outside the Borough. CORBETT, moved to excuse Commissioner Stepovich Seconded by RODRIGUEZ from the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for August 25, 2026 and Commissioner Muehling from the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for August 11, 2026. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH July 28, 2026 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 11 Page 610 of 1055 Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Planning Department Administration Division planning@fnsb.gov Main: (907) 459-1260 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Crass Presiding Officer Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly THROUGH: Grier Hopkins, Borough Mayor FROM: Kellen Spillman Director Community Planning Department DATE: August 27, 2026 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2026-22: Ordinance Adopting New Flood Maps, Flood Insurance Study and Title 15 Changes This ordinance proposes adopting new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and a new Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for the borough. The FNSB has been working on this flood zone remapping project since 2014, when the current maps were originally adopted. At that time, many of the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) appeared to be overstated; the FNSB aims to have accurate FIRMs for the entire borough. The attached FIRMs and FIS documents are the product of more than 11 years of work between the FNSB and FEMA, utilizing several grant programs. The FNSB is a participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and must adopt regulations that meet the minimum requirements under 44 CFR Part 60 to remain in good standing with the program. Several changes are being proposed to FNSB Title 15 to meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP. In general, this ordinance would greatly improve the accuracy of the flood hazard maps for the FNSB. This would be a significant benefit to residents as its net effect would be to remove approximately 2,343 structures from the SFHA. For these residents, flood insurance would become optional and significantly cheaper. I urge your referral of this ordinance to the Planning Commission as required by code. A more in-depth staff report will be given during the public hearings at the Planning Commission and Assembly. Physical: 907 Terminal St. Fairbanks, AK 99701 Website: fnsb.gov Mailing: PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707 Page 611 of 1055 Page 2 of 2 Page 612 of 1055 1 By: Grier Hopkins, Mayor 2 Referred to Planning 3 Commission: August 27, 2026 4 5 6 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH 7 8 ORDINANCE NO. 2026 – 22 9 10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FNSBC TITLE 15, BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION, TO 11 UPDATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND ADOPT REVISED FLOOD 12 INSURANCE MAPS AND FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE 13 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 14 15 WHEREAS, The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a Federal 16 program enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as 17 a protection against flood losses in exchange for state and local floodplain management 18 regulations that reduce the risk of future flood losses; and 19 20 WHEREAS, The Fairbanks North Star Borough (Borough) was the second 21 community in the United States to participate in the NFIP; and 22 23 WHEREAS, The Borough regulates all development within the special flood 24 hazard area (SFHA) in order to meet the requirements of the NFIP under 44 CFR Part 60, 25 including all development within the City of Fairbanks and the City of North Pole; and 26 27 WHEREAS, The Borough is required to adopt a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) 28 and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the area of the municipality; and 29 30 WHEREAS, The voters of the Borough voted to add the additional areawide 31 power flood control to the Borough in the 1965 municipal election; and 32 AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 1 of 23 Page 613 of 105533 WHEREAS, The Borough has a long history of flooding, including the 1967 34 flood of record, which caused over $700 million in damage; and 35 36 WHEREAS, The Borough has adopted development regulations for areas 37 within the SFHA under FNSBC Title 15; and 38 39 WHEREAS, The Borough adopted the most recent large-scale FIRM and FIS, 40 dated March 17, 2014, under Ordinance No. 2014-08; and 41 42 WHEREAS, In the March 17, 2014 FIRM over 1,000 properties were brought 43 into the SFHA, particularly in the Tanana River/Salcha area; and 44 45 WHEREAS, To revise the FIRM, there must be more accurate data 46 presented, including modeling of the 1% annual chance (100-year flood) and where the 47 subject flood waters will go; and 48 49 WHEREAS, The 2014 FIRMs were developed using less precise topographic 50 information, resulting in mapping that was less accurate; and 51 52 WHEREAS, Since that time, the Borough has acquired LiDAR elevation data 53 covering most populated areas, with an elevation accuracy of approximately 10 54 centimeters; and 55 56 WHEREAS, The improved LiDAR data, together with advances in flood 57 modeling technology, has resulted in the development of significantly more accurate 58 FIRMs for the Borough; and 59 AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 2 of 23 Page 614 of 105560 WHEREAS, The Borough in partnership with the Federal Emergency 61 Management Agency (FEMA) initiated a study of the Tanana River through the 62 Cooperative Technical Partnership (CTP) grant program to provide a more accurate FIS 63 and FIRM for the Tanana River; and 64 65 WHEREAS, The model used in the 2014 FIRM was a one-dimensional model 66 that did not accurately represent a braided glacial river; and 67 68 WHEREAS, The Borough began a Tanana River/Salcha Flood Study in 2015 69 through Ordinance No. 2015-20-1G; and 70 71 WHEREAS, The Borough partnered with FEMA in 2016 through the CTP 72 grant program through Ordinance No. 2016-20-1K to continue work on the Tanana 73 River/Salcha Flood Study; and 74 75 WHEREAS, The Borough continued its partnership with FEMA in 2018 76 through another CTP grant through Ordinance No. 2019-20-1G to expand the study to 77 include a much greater portion of the Tanana River; and 78 79 WHEREAS, The Borough worked closely with a contractor and FEMA to 80 remodel the Tanana River and remap the associated flood hazards for the area; and 81 82 WHEREAS, The State of Alaska identified the Borough as a priority for 83 FEMA’s Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (MAP) program and the expanded map 84 update began on August 27, 2020; and 85 86 WHEREAS, This expanded map update includes the majority of other 87 tributaries and rivers in the Borough; and AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 3 of 23 Page 615 of 1055 88 89 WHEREAS, Throughout the process the Borough conducted extensive public 90 outreach including multiple public open houses and mailers to every impacted property 91 owner; and 92 93 WHEREAS, In June 2025, the Borough, FEMA, and the State of Alaska 94 conducted three large public open houses in Salcha, North Pole, and Fairbanks, to review 95 the draft FIRMs with the public; and 96 97 WHEREAS, The official draft FIRMs began a statutory 90-day appeal period 98 on September 16, 2025 that ended on December 15, 2025; and 99 100 WHEREAS, There were no appeals received during the 90-day appeal 101 period; and 102 103 WHEREAS, If the draft FIRMs are adopted, it is expected that approximately 104 2,881 structures would be removed from the SFHA, approximately 538 structures would 105 be added to the SFHA, with a net change of approximately 2,343 structures being 106 removed from the SFHA; and 107 108 WHEREAS, If the draft FIRMs are adopted, it could result in flood insurance 109 cost savings of over $15 million for the residents of the Borough; and 110 111 WHEREAS, The majority of properties still located in the SFHA will benefit 112 from a lower Base Flood Elevation on the draft FIRMs; and 113 114 WHEREAS, There are additional minor changes and clarifications needed to 115 FNSBC Title 15 in order to meet the minimum requirements of 44 CFR Part 60; and AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 4 of 23 Page 616 of 1055116 117 WHEREAS, The Borough must meet the minimum requirements of 44 CFR 118 Part 60 to be a participating community in the NFIP; and 119 120 WHEREAS, FEMA historically has not allowed crawlspaces under the NFIP 121 in a SFHA, but FEMA Technical Bulletin 11 now has allowances for crawlspaces; and 122 123 WHEREAS, This ordinance incorporates the minimum crawlspace 124 requirements under FNSBC 15.04.110(C)(2) put forth in FEMA Technical Bulletin 11; and 125 126 WHEREAS, FEMA Policy 104-008-03 outlines additional allowances for 127 “accessory structures” in lieu of elevation or dry floodproofing; and 128 129 WHEREAS, This ordinance incorporates the minimum accessory structure 130 wet floodproofing requirements under FNSBC 15.04.110(E) put forth in FEMA Policy 104- 131 008-03; and 132 133 WHEREAS, FEMA Policy 104-008-03 requires that communities establish a 134 maximum size requirement for accessory structure wet floodproofing requirements “less 135 than or equal to the size of a one-story, two-car garage’’; and 136 137 WHEREAS, Garages in the Borough tend to be larger than the national 138 average and this ordinance puts forth a maximum accessory structure size of 800 square 139 feet to use the wet floodproofing allowances in lieu of elevation of dry floodproofing; and 140 141 WHEREAS, The Borough intends on remaining a participating community in 142 the NFIP and adopting the January 8, 2027 FIS and FIRM to have a positive impact on 143 the community. AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 5 of 23 Page 617 of 1055144 145 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Assembly of the Fairbanks 146 North Star Borough: 147 148 Section 1. Classification. This ordinance is of a general and permanent 149 nature and shall be codified. 150 151 Section 2. FNSBC 15.04.010, Definitions, is amended as follows: 152 For the purposes of this chapter: 153 “Accessory structure” means a structure which is on the same parcel of property 154 as a principal structure and use of which is incidental to the use of the principal structure. 155 Accessory structures are buildings such as detached garages, boathouses, small pole 156 barns and storage sheds not to be used for human habitation (including working, 157 sleeping, living, cooking, or restroom areas). 158 “Alteration of a watercourse” means any human-made change to a watercourse 159 which may impede, retard, change the direction of water flow, or in any way reduce the 160 watercourse’s ability to carry a base flood, including, but not limited to, bridges, culverts, 161 embankments, excavations, fills and levees. 162 “Base flood” means a flood having a one percent chance of being [EQUALLED] 163 equaled or exceeded in any given year. 164 “Base flood elevation” means the elevation of the flood having a one percent 165 chance of being [EQUALLED] equaled or exceeded in any given year. 166 “Commission” means the Fairbanks North Star Borough planning commission. 167 “Crawlspace” means a shallow, unfinished horizontal space beneath the lowest 168 floor of a building, used to access plumbing, wiring, duct work, storage, etc. 169 “Critical facility” means a facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might 170 be too great. Critical facilities include, but are not limited to, schools, nursing homes, AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 6 of 23 Page 618 of 1055171 hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, and installations which 172 produce, use or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. 173 “Development” means any human-made change to improved or unimproved real 174 estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, 175 grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials 176 located within the [AREA OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD] Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). 177 Soil test bores for the purpose of determining land suitability for development, and that 178 are temporary, involve no permanent structures and will not change the dynamic of the 179 floodplain, are excluded from this definition. 180 “Director” means the director of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Department of 181 Community Planning or their designee. 182 “Elevated building” means a nonbasement building which has its lowest elevated 183 floor raised above ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or 184 columns. 185 “Exceptional hardship” means an extraordinary circumstance not created by the 186 applicant, and not applying to other persons similarly situated, which makes complying 187 with standards of this chapter unfair, impractical or impossible. 188 “Existing manufactured home park or subdivision” means a manufactured home 189 park subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the 190 manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of 191 utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete 192 pads) is completed before the effective date of the adopted floodplain management 193 regulations. 194 “Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision” means the 195 preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on 196 which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the 197 construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 7 of 23 Page 619 of 1055198 “Flood” or “flooding” means a general and temporary condition of partial or 199 complete inundation of normally dry land areas from (1) the overflow of inland or tidal 200 waters and/or (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from 201 any source. 202 “Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)” means an official map of the community, on 203 which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both special flood hazard areas 204 and risk premium zones applicable to the community. This includes a FIRM that has been 205 made available digitally, known as a Digital Flood insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). 206 “Flood Insurance Study” means the official report provided by the Federal 207 Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Insurance Rate Map, and 208 the water surface elevation of the base flood. 209 “Floodproofing” means any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, 210 changes or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real 211 estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their 212 contents. 213 “Floodway” means the channel of a river or other watercourse and adjacent land 214 area that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively 215 increasing water surface elevations more than one foot. 216 “Highest adjacent grade” means the highest natural elevation of the ground 217 surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. 218 “Historic structure” means any structure that is (1) listed on the National Register 219 of Historic Places by the U.S. Department of the Interior or preliminarily determined by 220 the U.S. Department of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on 221 the National Register; (2) certified or preliminarily determined by the U.S. Department of 222 the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district; 223 (3) individually listed on a state inventory of historic places pursuant to a historic 224 preservation program which has been approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior; 225 or (4) individually listed on a local inventory of historic places. AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 8 of 23 Page 620 of 1055226 “Letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR-F)” means a letter from the Federal 227 Emergency Management Agency modifying the special flood hazard area shown on the 228 effective Flood Insurance Rate Map based on the placement of fill outside the existing 229 regulatory floodway. 230 “Letter of map revision (LOMR)” means a letter from the Federal Emergency 231 Management Agency officially modifying the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map. 232 “Lowest Adjacent Grade (LAG)” means the lowest point of the ground level 233 immediately next to a building. 234 “Lowest floor” means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including 235 basement). An unfinished or flood-resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of 236 vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not 237 considered a building’s lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to 238 render the structure in violation of the applicable nonelevation design requirements of 239 FNSBC 15.04.110. 240 “Manufactured home” means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, 241 which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used with or without a 242 permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. It does not include 243 recreational vehicles or travel trailers. 244 “Manufactured home park or subdivision” means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) 245 of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. 246 “New construction” means structures for which the start of construction 247 commenced on or after May 27, 1971, and includes any subsequent improvements to 248 such structures. 249 “New manufactured home park or subdivision” means a manufactured home park 250 or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the 251 manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of 252 utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete 253 pads) is completed on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 9 of 23 Page 621 of 1055254 “Physical map revision (PMR)” means an action whereby one or more map panels 255 of an effective Flood Insurance Rate Map are physically revised and republished. 256 “Recreational vehicle” means a vehicle which is (1) built on a single chassis; (2) 257 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; (3) designed 258 to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (4) designed 259 primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for 260 recreational, camping, travel or seasonal use [(NO MORE THAN 180 DAYS)]. 261 “Shall” is interpreted to be mandatory; “may” is interpreted to be permissive; 262 “should” is interpreted to be strongly recommended but not mandatory. 263 “Special flood hazard area” means that portion of the floodplain that is subject to 264 inundation by the base flood and/or flood-related erosion hazards. 265 “Start of construction” includes substantial improvement, and means the date the 266 floodplain permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, 267 reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. 268 The “actual start” means either the first placement of permanent construction of a 269 structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the 270 construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement 271 of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land 272 preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of 273 streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, 274 or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on 275 the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling 276 units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the “actual start 277 of construction” means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural 278 part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the 279 building. AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 10 of 23 Page 622 of 1055280 “Structure” means any walled, roofed building that is [ERECTED ON THE GROUND 281 OR ATTACHED TO] principally above the ground, including, but not limited to, houses, 282 factories, sheds, cabins, mobile homes, liquid or gas storage tanks or similar uses. 283 “Substantial damage” means damage of any origin sustained by a structure 284 whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal 285 or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. 286 “Substantially improved” or “substantial improvement” means any repair, 287 reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition or improvement of a structure, the cost of which 288 equals or exceeds 50 percent of [ASSESSED] market value of the structure before the 289 start of construction of the improvement. For purposes of this definition, “substantial 290 improvement” is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, 291 or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects 292 the external dimensions of the structure. This includes structures which have incurred 293 substantial damage, regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, 294 however, include either (1) any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing 295 violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been 296 identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to 297 assure safe living conditions; or (2) any alteration of a historic structure; provided, that 298 the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a historic 299 structure. 300 “Variance” means a grant of relief from the requirements of this chapter which 301 permits construction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this chapter. 302 “Violation” means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully 303 compliant with the Borough’s floodplain ordinance. A structure or other development 304 without an approved floodplain permit, an elevation certificate, other certifications and 305 other evidence of compliance as required by this chapter is presumed to be in violation 306 until such time as that documentation is provided. AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 11 of 23 Page 623 of 1055307 “Watercourse” means those stream channels, rivers or sloughs that are contained 308 wholly or in part within a designated special flood hazard area as identified on the current 309 Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 310 311 Section 3. FNSBC 15.04.040, Special flood hazard areas, is amended as 312 follows: 313 A. This chapter shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction 314 of the Fairbanks North Star Borough. 315 B. A special flood hazard area is established as including those lands and properties 316 within the Fairbanks North Star Borough which are designated as any “A” Flood Zone 317 including but not limited to Flood Zones A, AE, AH and AO identified by the Federal 318 Insurance Administrator in a scientific engineering report entitled [“FLOOD INSURANCE 319 STUDY FOR THE FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH”] “Flood Insurance Study” for 320 Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska and Incorporated Areas dated [MARCH 17, 2014, 321 AND REVISED SEPTEMBER 18, 2020] January 8, 2027, and with accompanying Flood 322 Insurance Rate Maps dated [MARCH 17, 2014, AS AMENDED BY APPROVED PHYSICAL 323 MAP REVISIONS] January 8, 2027. 324 C. A revision to designated Flood Insurance Rate Map panels and/or a Flood 325 Insurance Study prepared by the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration by a 326 letter of map revision (LOMR) or letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR-F) shall be 327 effective 30 days after the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s effective date. Upon 328 approval by the Federal Insurance Administrator, any other revisions to the effective 329 Flood Insurance Rate Map panels and the Flood Insurance Study through a physical map 330 revision shall be presented to the commission for its recommendation and approved by 331 the Borough Assembly. 332 D. Precise location of flood hazard areas may be difficult to determine because of the 333 scale of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. In disputed cases, the director shall determine 334 whether a particular parcel is located in a flood hazard area. AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 12 of 23 Page 624 of 1055335 336 Section 4. FNSBC 15.04.060, Floodplain permits – Application, is amended 337 as follows: 338 A. Application for a floodplain permit shall be made to the director on a form furnished 339 by the Department of Community Planning. The application shall contain the information 340 required by this section. 341 B. Applications for construction of any new or substantially improved structure or 342 placement of any movable structure in a special flood hazard area shall contain the 343 following information: 344 1. Elevations (in relation to mean sea level) for: 345 a. The lowest floor, including basement; and 346 b. The estimated base flood elevation of the site as determined in 347 accordance with FNSBC 15.04.100. 348 2. Evidence that the proposed structure will be adequately protected from 349 inundation, in the manner described in FNSBC 15.04.110. 350 3. Elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which any nonresidential 351 structure has been floodproofed. 352 4. Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the 353 floodproofing methods for any nonresidential structure meet the floodproofing criteria in 354 FNSBC 15.04.110(D). 355 5. If within the regulatory floodway, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses 356 performed in accordance with standard engineering practice and signed and sealed by a 357 licensed professional engineer demonstrating that the proposed development will not 358 result in any increase in flood levels (i.e., a 0.00-feet increase in base flood elevation) 359 within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. This should 360 include a comparison of existing (pre-project) conditions and proposed (post-project) 361 conditions and supporting technical data to verify the no-rise conclusion. AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 13 of 23 Page 625 of 1055362 6. Such other information and supporting documents that the Director may 363 require in order to review the application for compliance with this Title. 364 C. Applications for the alteration or relocation of a watercourse shall include the 365 following: 366 1. A detailed description of proposed alterations, identifying the extent to 367 which the watercourse will be altered, relocated or impacted; and 368 2. A report from a registered engineer or certified hydrologist stating that the 369 ability of the channel to adequately carry floodwater will be maintained at the same 370 capacity as prior to alteration, or a certification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 371 Floodplain Management Section, stating the same. 372 D. Applications for development other than those included in subsection (B) or (C) of 373 this section (mining, excavation, etc.) shall include: 374 1. A detailed description of the proposed development, identifying the extent 375 to which the flow of floodwaters will be impeded or impacted; and 376 2. A report from a registered engineer or certified hydrologist stating that the 377 proposed development will not diminish the movement or withdrawal of floodwaters, or 378 pollute or be polluted by floodwaters, or a certification from the U.S. Army Corps of 379 Engineers, Floodplain Management Section, stating the same. 380 E. If encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvement, and 381 other development, are within the regulatory floodway, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses 382 performed in accordance with standard engineering practice must be submitted 383 demonstrating that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood 384 levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. In Zone 385 AE where no regulatory floodway has been designated, proof must be submitted 386 demonstrating that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined 387 with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface 388 elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. 389 F. No floodplain permit will be issued unless: AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 14 of 23 Page 626 of 1055390 1. The proposed development will be reasonably safe from flooding, or [A]all 391 requirements of this chapter are met; 392 2. The proposed development is in compliance with FNSBC Titles 17 and 18, 393 and all other ordinances or regulations as are from time to time established or amended; 394 however, the ordinance codified in this chapter shall control in the event of any conflict 395 unless specifically stated otherwise; and 396 3. The applicant has received all necessary permits from those governmental 397 agencies from which approval is required by federal or state law, including Section 404 398 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 USC 1344 (wetlands 399 regulations). 400 G. A permit shall be granted or denied within 30 days from receiving the application. 401 If additional information is required, the director shall act within 30 days of receipt of 402 such additional requested information. A denial of a permit shall be accompanied with 403 written findings. Transmittal by certified mail shall be sufficient notice. 404 405 Section 5. FNSBC 15.04.110, Protection from inundation – Construction 406 standards, is amended as follows: 407 A. No person shall construct or substantially improve any structure within a special 408 flood hazard area that is not in compliance with this section. 409 B. General Construction Standards. All new construction or substantial improvements 410 to a structure shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood 411 damage and comply with the following standards: 412 1. Structures shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, 413 plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed or 414 located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components 415 during conditions of flooding. 416 2. Fuel storage tanks and other liquid storage tanks shall be secured to prevent 417 disturbance by floodwater. Buried tanks shall be secured to a concrete base slab of AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 15 of 23 Page 627 of 1055418 sufficient volume to prevent flotation or otherwise adequately secured. Both fill and vent 419 pipes shall extend at least one foot above the base flood elevation. 420 3. On-site waste disposal systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate 421 infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharges from the systems into 422 floodwaters and shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination to them 423 during flooding. 424 4. All new construction and substantial improvements (including the 425 placement of prefabricated buildings and manufactured homes) shall be designed (or 426 modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of 427 the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of 428 buoyancy. 429 5. All new construction and substantial improvements below the base flood 430 elevation shall be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage. 431 6. New and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize 432 or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems. 433 C. Residential Structures. All new construction of and substantial improvements to 434 residential structures shall have: 435 1. The lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood 436 elevation; and 437 2. Other fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor, such as crawl spaces, 438 that are subject to flooding, and that are usable solely for the parking of vehicles, building 439 access, or limited storage, shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood 440 forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for 441 meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer 442 or architect or must meet or exceed the following criteria: 443 a. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than 444 one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be 445 provided. AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 16 of 23 Page 628 of 1055446 b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above 447 grade. 448 c. Openings shall be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other 449 coverings or devices; provided, that they permit the automatic entry and exit of 450 floodwaters. 451 d. The height of the below-grade area, such as a crawl space, shall not 452 exceed four feet measured from the interior grade at any point to the bottom of the 453 lowest horizontal structural member of the lowest floor of the structure. 454 e. The interior grade of the below-grade area, such as a crawl space, 455 must not be more than two feet below the exterior lowest adjacent grade (LAG). 456 f. There must be an adequate drainage system that removes 457 floodwaters from the interior area of the below-grade area. The area shall be drained 458 within a reasonable time after a flood event. 459 g. The velocity of floodwaters at the site shall not exceed five (5) feet 460 per second for any below-grade area. 461 D. Nonresidential Structures. 462 1. All new construction of and substantial improvements to nonresidential 463 structures shall have either: 464 a. The lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base 465 flood elevation; or 466 b. Together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so 467 that below the base flood [LEVEL] elevation the structure is watertight with walls 468 substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having 469 the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. 470 2. Where a nonresidential structure is intended to be made watertight below 471 the base flood [LEVEL] elevation: 472 a. A registered professional engineer or architect shall develop and/or 473 review structural designs, specifications, and plans for the construction, and shall certify AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 17 of 23 Page 629 of 1055474 that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards 475 of practice for meeting the applicable provisions of subsection (D)(1) of this section; and 476 b. A record of such certificates which includes the specific elevation (in 477 relation to mean sea level) to which such structures are floodproofed shall be maintained 478 by the Department of Community Planning. 479 3. Other fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are usable solely for 480 parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement and 481 which are subject to flooding shall comply with the requirements of subsection (C)(2) of 482 this section. 483 E. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures shall be constructed and placed on the 484 building site so as to offer minimum resistance to the flow of floodwaters, and shall be 485 anchored to prevent flotation which may result in damage to other structures. Services 486 utilities such as electrical and heating equipment shall be elevated or floodproofed. All 487 accessory structures shall: 488 1. Have the lowest floor above the base flood elevation; or 489 2. Be dry floodproofed under FNSBC 15.04.110(D)(2); or 490 3. Meet all of the following requirements: 491 a. The portion of the structure below the base flood elevation must be 492 constructed with flood-resistant materials. 493 b. Be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on 494 exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. 495 c. Be less than or equal to 800 square feet in gross floor area and only 496 one story. 497 d. Be wet floodproofed to the following standards: 498 i. The structure must be adequately anchored to resist flotation, 499 collapse, and lateral movement; and AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 18 of 23 Page 630 of 1055500 ii. Any electrical or mechanical equipment (such as electric boxes, 501 switches, and outlets) must be elevated or floodproofed to or above the flood protection 502 level. 503 4. Any accessory structure within the floodway must comply with the 504 provisions of FNSBC 15.04.060 and 15.04.150. 505 F. Recreational Vehicles. In a special flood hazard area, a recreational vehicle must 506 be licensed and titled as a recreational vehicle or park model (not as a permanent 507 residence) and ready for highway use (i.e., on its wheels or jacking system, have no 508 attached deck, porch or shed, and have quick-disconnect sewage, water and electrical 509 connectors) or be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days. Recreational vehicles 510 that do not meet these conditions must obtain a permit and meet the elevation and 511 anchoring requirements for manufactured homes. 512 G. Critical Facilities. The following additional standards apply to critical facilities: 513 1. Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located 514 outside the limits of the special flood hazard area. Construction of new critical facilities 515 shall be permissible within the special flood hazard area if no feasible alternative site is 516 available. 517 2. Critical facilities constructed within the special flood hazard area shall have 518 the lowest floor elevated three feet above the base flood elevation or to the height of the 519 500-year flood, whichever is higher. 520 3. Access to and from the critical facility should be protected to the height 521 utilized above. 522 4. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic 523 substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. 524 5. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation 525 shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible. 526 AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 19 of 23 Page 631 of 1055527 Section 6. FNSBC 15.04.120, Standards for manufactured homes, is 528 amended as follows: 529 A. Manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved within a special 530 flood hazard area on any of the following sites must be elevated on a permanent 531 foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated to or above 532 the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation 533 system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement: 534 1. Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision; 535 2. [IN A MANUFACTURED HOME] In a new manufactured home park or 536 subdivision; 537 3. In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision; or 538 4. In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a 539 manufactured home has incurred substantial damage as the result of a flood. 540 B. Manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an existing 541 manufactured home park or subdivision within the special flood hazard area that are not 542 subject to the provisions of subsection (A) of this section must be elevated so that either: 543 1. The lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or above the base flood 544 elevation; or 545 2. The manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other 546 foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in 547 height above grade and is securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation 548 system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement. 549 550 Section 7. FNSBC 15.04.180, Procedure for obtaining variances, is amended 551 as follows: 552 A. Variances to this chapter may be granted by the planning commission only in 553 accordance with the standards set forth in this section. The planning commission must AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 20 of 23 Page 632 of 1055554 consider the fact that every newly constructed building adds to the local government’s 555 responsibilities and remains a part of the community for the indefinite future. 556 B. Variances may be issued for: 557 1. The repair or rehabilitation of historic structures upon a determination that 558 the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure’s continued 559 designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve 560 the historic character and design of the structure; or 561 2. New construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of 562 one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures 563 constructed below the base flood [LEVEL] elevation, in conformance with the procedures 564 of subsection (C) of this section; if the variance is on a lot exceeding one-half acre, it 565 should be presumed that the lot is large enough to be developed without the variance 566 and the technical justification for issuing the variance increases; or 567 3. New construction and substantial improvements and for other development 568 necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use (that is, the use of the building 569 is absolutely dependent on its close proximity to water); provided, that (a) the criteria of 570 subsection (C) of this section are met, and (b) the structure or other development is 571 protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood and create no 572 additional threats to public safety; or 573 4. Agricultural structures located in wide, expansive floodplains and used for 574 temporary storage of equipment, crops or shelter for livestock upon demonstration that 575 such structures are designed to result in minimal damage to the structure and its contents 576 and will create no additional threats to public safety during periods of flooding and 577 provided that the criteria of subsection (C) of this section are met. 578 C. Procedures for the granting of variances by the planning commission are as 579 follows: 580 1. Variances shall not be issued within any designated regulatory floodway if 581 any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result; AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 21 of 23 Page 633 of 1055582 2. Variances shall only be issued upon: 583 a. A showing of good and sufficient cause; 584 b. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in 585 exceptional hardship to the applicant; and 586 c. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in 587 increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety or extraordinary public 588 expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with 589 existing local laws or ordinances; 590 3. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the 591 minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief; 592 4. The applicant shall be notified in writing by the director that (a) the issuance 593 of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood [LEVEL] elevation will result 594 in increased premium rates for flood insurance commensurate with the increased risk and 595 (b) such construction below the base flood [LEVEL] elevation increases risks to life and 596 property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions as 597 required in subsection (C)(5) of this section; 598 5. The Department of Community Planning shall (a) maintain a record of all 599 variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and (b) report such variances 600 issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the Federal Insurance Administrator; 601 and 602 6. An appeal from a decision made under this section may be made to the 603 Board of Adjustment in accordance with the procedures set forth in FNSBC Title 18. 604 605 Section 8. Effective Date. Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this ordinance are 606 effective at 5:00 p.m. on the first Borough business day following its adoption. Section 3 607 of this ordinance shall be effective on January 8, 2027. 608 AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 22 of 23 Page 634 of 1055 609 ADOPTED THE DAY OF 2026 610 611 - 612 613 Scott Crass 6t4 Presiding Officer 615 616 617 618 ATTEST: 619 620 62t April Trickey, MMC Jill S. Dolan 622 Borough Clerk Borough Attorney AMENDMENTSARE SHOWN IN LEGISI-ATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deletedis [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska oRDINANCE No. 2026-)c( Page 23 of 23 Page 635 of 1055 Check Date Fairbanks North Star Borough Fiscal Version 1 Version 2 Impact Statement (FIS) (FNSBC 3.20.010 C.) Version 3 Version 4 Originator's Name: _________________________ Department: _________________________ To Be Introduced/Sponsored By: __________________________________________________ Abbreviated Ordinance Title: ______________________________________________________ Department(s)/Division(s) Affected: ________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Introduction Date: _________________________ Ordinance No.: _______________22 Does this ordinance authorize: 1) a new or expansion of services which entails additional costs beyond that approved in the current adopted budget? Yes ____ No ____ * 2) a project that is capital in nature and increases operational costs of the Borough in the current or any future fiscal year? Yes ____ No ____ * FISCAL IMPACT PRO FORMA SUMMARY - BEST ESTIMATE Remainder of 1st Full FY of 2nd Full FY of 3rd Full FY of 4th Full FY of Current FY Operations Operations Operations Operations Required Information/Estimates FY 20___/___ FY 20___/___ FY 20___/___ FY 20___/___ FY 20___/___ 1. Timeline inclusive of all phases 2. Number and type of new positions which may be required 3. Cost of operations and maintenance 4. Future costs to complete capital assets 5. Estimated revenue impact 6. Estimated non-Borough funds that may be received: a. to fund the ordinance b. to fund future phases c. to fund future operations and maintenance costs 7. Anticipated annual tax subsidy Is backup attached? Yes ____ No ____ Contact Person's Name, for FIS questions: Extension: Director(s) Signature(s): Date: 8.6.26 Mayor's Office or Assembly Member Signature: Date: Chief Financial Officer Signature: Date: W:\Financial Services\FS Ordinances & Resolutions\ORDINANC\Fiscal Impact Statement Form & Procedures\Fiscal Impact Statement 10-15-2021 Revision.pdf Page 1 of 2 Page 636 of 1055 Process/Instructions To prepare a Fiscal Impact Statement (FIS): Complete the top section of the FIS. Answer the two questions, Yes or No. * If the answer to either question on page 1 is Yes, complete the Pro Forma Summary and provide the FIS contact person's information and the Director's signature. - To avoid uncertainty, fill in every solid box; if an answer is zero or none, enter 0 or None. - Attach backup detail to support your estimates, as necessary. * If the answer to both questions is No, provide the FIS contact person's information and if Administration initiated Director's signature. Continue to next block. Ordinance from a department: Department submits FIS to Mayor's Office for signature and for concurrence to be the ordinance sponsor. Mayor's Office dates and signs FIS Version 1. After Mayor's Office OK, department drafts ordinance and prepares a Finance Checklist for the appropriating ordinance. Department submits an FIS Version 1 signed by the Mayor's Office, to Finance along with the draft ordinance and Finance Checklist for the appropriating ordinance. Ordinance from the Mayor: Mayor's Office works with affected department(s) to prepare the FIS. Mayor's Office dates and signs FIS Version 1. If the Law department will be drafting the ordinance, the Mayor's Office will submit the signed FIS Version 1 to Law along with the request for Law to draft the ordinance. - Law drafts the ordinance. - Law requests department(s) to revise FIS if needed, to match the ordinance. - Mayor's Office concurs with, and dates and signs the new FIS version. Otherwise, the Mayor's Office drafts the ordinance and prepares a Finance Checklist for the appropriating ordinance. Mayor's Office submits latest FIS version to Finance along with the draft ordinance and Finance Checklist. Ordinance from an Assembly Member: If Assembly Member/Clerk's Office/Law requires assistance in preparing the FIS, a request shall be submitted to the Mayor's Office for scheduling/coordination with affected department(s) to assist in preparing the FIS. Department(s) work with Assembly Member/Clerk's Office/Law to prepare the FIS. Assembly Member/Clerk's Office dates and signs FIS Version 1. If the Law department will be drafting the ordinance, the Assembly Member/Clerk's Office will submit the signed FIS Version 1 to Law along with the request for Law to draft the ordinance. - Law drafts the ordinance. - Law requests department(s) to revise FIS if needed, to match the ordinance. - Assembly Member/Clerk's Office concurs with, and dates and signs the new FIS version. Otherwise, the Assembly Member drafts the ordinance. Assembly Member/Clerk's Office/Law submits latest FIS version to Finance along with the draft ordinance. Chief Financial Officer (CFO) reviews FIS: CFO reviews FIS version submitted to Finance with ordinance. CFO consults with affected department(s) and/or ordinance sponsor, and requests FIS revisions if needed. CFO dates and signs FIS and routes it to Law, along with the draft ordinance and Finance Checklist, if any. \\tundra2\workgrps\Financial services\FS Ordinances & Resolutions\ORDINANC\Fiscal Impact Statement\Fiscal Impact Statement 9-5-2017 Revision - code.xlsx FIS 9/5/17 4:22PM Page 2 of 2 Page 637 of 1055Page 638 of 1055Page 639 of 1055Page 640 of 1055Page 641 of 1055Page 642 of 1055Page 643 of 1055Page 644 of 1055Page 645 of 1055Page 646 of 1055Page 647 of 1055Page 648 of 1055Page 649 of 1055Page 650 of 1055Page 651 of 1055Page 652 of 1055Page 653 of 1055Page 654 of 1055Page 655 of 1055Page 656 of 1055Page 657 of 1055Page 658 of 1055Page 659 of 1055Page 660 of 1055Page 661 of 1055Page 662 of 1055Page 663 of 1055Page 664 of 1055Page 665 of 1055Page 666 of 1055Page 667 of 1055Page 668 of 1055Page 669 of 1055Page 670 of 1055Page 671 of 1055Page 672 of 1055Page 673 of 1055Page 674 of 1055Page 675 of 1055Page 676 of 1055Page 677 of 1055Page 678 of 1055Page 679 of 1055Page 680 of 1055Page 681 of 1055Page 682 of 1055Page 683 of 1055Page 684 of 1055Page 685 of 1055Page 686 of 1055Page 687 of 1055Page 688 of 1055Page 689 of 1055Page 690 of 1055Page 691 of 1055Page 692 of 1055Page 693 of 1055Page 694 of 1055Page 695 of 1055Page 696 of 1055Page 697 of 1055Page 698 of 1055Page 699 of 1055Page 700 of 1055Page 701 of 1055Page 702 of 1055Page 703 of 1055Page 704 of 1055Page 705 of 1055Page 706 of 1055Page 707 of 1055Page 708 of 1055Page 709 of 1055Page 710 of 1055Page 711 of 1055Page 712 of 1055Page 713 of 1055Page 714 of 1055Page 715 of 1055Page 716 of 1055Page 717 of 1055Page 718 of 1055Page 719 of 1055Page 720 of 1055Page 721 of 1055Page 722 of 1055Page 723 of 1055Page 724 of 1055Page 725 of 1055Page 726 of 1055Page 727 of 1055Page 728 of 1055Page 729 of 1055Page 730 of 1055Page 731 of 1055Page 732 of 1055Page 733 of 1055Page 734 of 1055Page 735 of 1055Page 736 of 1055Page 737 of 1055Page 738 of 1055Page 739 of 1055Page 740 of 1055Page 741 of 1055Page 742 of 1055Page 743 of 1055Page 744 of 1055Page 745 of 1055Page 746 of 1055Page 747 of 1055Page 748 of 1055Page 749 of 1055Page 750 of 1055Page 751 of 1055Page 752 of 1055Page 753 of 1055Page 754 of 1055Page 755 of 1055Page 756 of 1055Page 757 of 1055Page 758 of 1055Page 759 of 1055Page 760 of 1055Page 761 of 1055Page 762 of 1055Page 763 of 1055Page 764 of 1055Page 765 of 1055Page 766 of 1055Page 767 of 1055Page 768 of 1055Page 769 of 1055Page 770 of 1055Page 771 of 1055Page 772 of 1055Page 773 of 1055Page 774 of 1055Page 775 of 1055Page 776 of 1055Page 777 of 1055Page 778 of 1055Page 779 of 1055Page 780 of 1055Page 781 of 1055Page 782 of 1055Page 783 of 1055Page 784 of 1055Page 785 of 1055Page 786 of 1055Page 787 of 1055Page 788 of 1055Page 789 of 1055Page 790 of 1055Page 791 of 1055Page 792 of 1055Page 793 of 1055Page 794 of 1055Page 795 of 1055Page 796 of 1055Page 797 of 1055Page 798 of 1055Page 799 of 1055Page 800 of 1055Page 801 of 1055Page 802 of 1055Page 803 of 1055Page 804 of 1055Page 805 of 1055Page 806 of 1055Page 807 of 1055Page 808 of 1055Page 809 of 1055Page 810 of 1055Page 811 of 1055Page 812 of 1055Page 813 of 1055Page 814 of 1055Page 815 of 1055Page 816 of 1055Page 817 of 1055Page 818 of 1055Page 819 of 1055Page 820 of 1055Page 821 of 1055Page 822 of 1055Page 823 of 1055Page 824 of 1055VOLUME 1 OF 1 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, ALASKA AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR 025009 BOROUGH REVISED: January 8, 2027 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 02090CV000C Version Number 2.8.5.6 Page 825 of 1055 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 4 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 19 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 19 2.2 Floodways 32 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 33 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 33 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 34 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 34 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 34 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 34 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 34 SECTION 3.0 – INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 34 3.1 National Flood Insurance Program Insurance Zones 34 SECTION 4.0 – AREA STUDIED 35 4.1 Basin Description 35 4.2 Principal Flood Problems 35 4.3 Dams and Other Flood Hazard Reduction Measures 36 4.4 Levee Systems 37 SECTION 5.0 – ENGINEERING METHODS 39 5.1 Hydrologic Analyses 39 5.2 Hydraulic Analyses 65 5.3 Coastal Analyses 80 5.3.1 Total Stillwater Elevations 80 5.3.2 Waves 80 5.3.3 Coastal Erosion 80 5.3.4 Wave Hazard Analyses 80 5.4 Alluvial Fan Analyses 80 SECTION 6.0 – MAPPING METHODS 81 6.1 Vertical and Horizontal Control 81 6.2 Base Map 82 6.3 Floodplain and Floodway Delineation 84 6.4 Coastal Flood Hazard Mapping 98 6.5 FIRM Revisions 98 i Page 826 of 1055 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 6.5.2 Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill 99 6.5.3 Letters of Map Revision 99 6.5.4 Physical Map Revisions 100 6.5.5 Contracted Restudies 100 6.5.6 Community Map History 100 SECTION 7.0 – CONTRACTED STUDIES AND COMMUNITY COORDINATION 101 7.1 Contracted Studies 101 7.2 Community Meetings 103 SECTION 8.0 – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 105 SECTION 9.0 – BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 106 Figures Page Figure 1: FIRM Index 6 Figure 2: FIRM Notes to Users 12 Figure 3: Map Legend for FIRM 15 Figure 4: Floodway Schematic 32 Figure 5: Wave Runup Transect Schematic 34 Figure 6: Coastal Transect Schematic 34 Figure 7: Frequency Discharge-Drainage Area Curves 64 Figure 8: 1% Annual Chance Total Stillwater Elevations for Coastal Areas 80 Figure 9: Transect Location Map 80 Tables Page Table 1: Listing of NFIP Jurisdictions 2 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report 20 Table 3: Flood Zone Designations by Community 35 Table 4: Basin Characteristics 35 Table 5: Principal Flood Problems 36 Table 6: Historic Flooding Elevations 36 Table 7: Dams and Other Flood Hazard Reduction Measures 37 Table 8: Levee Systems 38 Table 9: Summary of Discharges 41 Table 10: Summary of Non-Coastal Stillwater Elevations 64 Table 11: Stream Gage Information used to Determine Discharges 65 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses 66 Table 13: Roughness Coefficients 77 Table 14: Summary of Coastal Analyses 80 ii Page 827 of 1055 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Table 15: Tide Gage Analysis Specifics 80 Table 16: Coastal Transect Parameters 80 Table 17: Summary of Alluvial Fan Analyses 80 Table 18: Results of Alluvial Fan Analyses 80 Table 19: Countywide Vertical Datum Conversion 81 Table 20: Stream-Based Vertical Datum Conversion 81 Table 21: Base Map Sources 82 Table 22: Summary of Topographic Elevation Data used in Mapping 84 Table 23: Floodway Data 86 Table 24: Flood Hazard and Non-Encroachment Data for Selected Streams 98 Table 25: Summary of Coastal Transect Mapping Considerations 98 Table 26: Incorporated Letters of Map Change 99 Table 27: Community Map History 101 Table 28: Summary of Contracted Studies Included in this FIS Report 102 Table 29: Community Meetings 104 Table 30: Map Repositories 105 Table 31: Additional Information 106 Table 32: Bibliography and References 107 Volume 1 Exhibits Flood Profiles Panel Chena River 01-04 P Chena Slough 05-17 P Little Chena River 18-19 P Noyes Slough 20 P Exhibits Published Separately Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) iii Page 828 of 1055 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY REPORT FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, ALASKA SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a voluntary Federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. This insurance is designed to provide an alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods. For decades, the national response to flood disasters was generally limited to constructing flood-control works such as dams, levees, sea-walls, and the like, and providing disaster relief to flood victims. This approach did not reduce losses nor did it discourage unwise development. In some instances, it may have actually encouraged additional development. To compound the problem, the public generally could not buy flood coverage from insurance companies, and building techniques to reduce flood damage were often overlooked. In the face of mounting flood losses and escalating costs of disaster relief to the general taxpayers, the U.S. Congress created the NFIP. The intent was to reduce future flood damage through community floodplain management ordinances, and provide protection for property owners against potential losses through an insurance mechanism that requires a premium to be paid for the protection. The U.S. Congress established the NFIP on August 1, 1968, with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP was broadened and modified with the passage of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and other legislative measures. It was further modified by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 and the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. The NFIP is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the Federal Government. If a community adopts and enforces floodplain management regulations to reduce future flood risks to new construction and substantially improved structures in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. The community’s floodplain management regulations must meet or exceed criteria established in accordance with Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60, Criteria for Land Management and Use. SFHAs are delineated on the community’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Under the NFIP, buildings that were built before the flood hazard was identified on the community’s FIRMs are generally referred to as “Pre-FIRM” buildings. When the NFIP was created, the U.S. Congress recognized that insurance for Pre-FIRM buildings would be prohibitively expensive if the premiums were not subsidized by the Federal Government. Congress also recognized that most of these floodprone buildings were built 1 Page 829 of 1055 by individuals who did not have sufficient knowledge of the flood hazard to make informed decisions. The NFIP requires that full actuarial rates reflecting the complete flood risk be charged on all buildings constructed or substantially improved on or after the effective date of the initial FIRM for the community or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later. These buildings are generally referred to as “Post-FIRM” buildings. 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Report revises and updates information on the existence and severity of flood hazards for the study area. The studies described in this report developed flood hazard data to assist communities in efforts to implement sound floodplain management. In some states or communities, floodplain management criteria or regulations may exist that are more restrictive than the minimum Federal requirements. Contact your State NFIP Coordinator to ensure that any higher State standards are included in the community’s regulations. 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project This FIS Report covers the entire geographic area of Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska. The jurisdictions that are included in this project area, along with the Community Identification Number (CID) for each community and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC-8) sub-basins affecting each, are shown in Table 1. The FIRM panel numbers that affect each community are listed. If the flood hazard data for the community is not included in this FIS Report, the location of that data is identified. The location of flood hazard data for participating communities in multiple jurisdictions is also indicated in the table. Table 1: Listing of NFIP Jurisdictions HUC-8 If Not Included, Sub- Location of Flood Community CID Basin(s) Located on FIRM Panel(s) Hazard Data 0250090025F, 0250090050E, 0250090075G, 0250090100G, 0250090125F, 0250090150E, 1 0250090175E, 0250090179F , 0250090200G, 0250090225K, 0250090250F, 0250090275F, 19080305, 0250090300E, 0250090325E, 0250090350G, Fairbanks 19080306, 025009 1 North Star 19080307, 0250090375F, 0250090400E , 02090C1750K, 02090C1775K, 02090C1800K, 02090C1825K, Borough 19080309 02090C1850K, 02090C1875K, 02090C1900K, 02090C1925K, 02090C2250K, 02090C2275K, 02090C2300K, 02090C2325K, 02090C2350K, 02090C2375K, 02090C2400K, 02090C2425K, 2 Page 830 of 1055 Table 1: Listing of NFIP Jurisdictions (continued) HUC-8 If Not Included, Sub- Location of Flood Community CID Basin(s) Located on FIRM Panel(s) Hazard Data 02090C2450K, 02090C2475K, 02090C2700K, 02090C2725K, 02090C2750K, 02090C2775K, 02090C3225K, 02090C3250K, 1 1 02090C3275K , 02090C3300K , 02090C3325K, 02090C3350K, 02090C3365K, 02090C3370K, 02090C3375K, 02090C3390K, 02090C3395K, 02090C3400K, 02090C3415K, 02090C3420K, 02090C3425K, 02090C3440K, 02090C3445K, 02090C3450K, 02090C3465K, 02090C3470K, 02090C3475K1, 02090C3490K, 02090C3495K, 02090C3500K1, 02090C3515K, 02090C3525K, 02090C3550K, 02090C3575K, 02090C3600K, 02090C3625K, 02090C3650K, 02090C3675K, 02090C3700K, 02090C3725K, 02090C3750K, 02090C4305K, 02090C4310K, 02090C4315K, 02090C4320K, 02090C4330K, 02090C4334K, 02090C4335K, 02090C4340K, 02090C4342K, 02090C4345K, 02090C4351K, 02090C4352K, 02090C4353K, 02090C4354K, (continued) 02090C4356K, 02090C4357K, 02090C4358K, Fairbanks 02090C4359K, 02090C4361K, 02090C4362K, North Star 02090C4363K, 02090C4364K, 02090C4366K, Borough 02090C4367K, 02090C4368K, 02090C4369K, 02090C4376K, 02090C4377K, 02090C4378K, 02090C4379K, 02090C4383K, 02090C4385K, 02090C4386K, 02090C4387K, 02090C4388K, 02090C4389K, 02090C4391K, 02090C4395K, 02090C4405K, 02090C4410L, 02090C4415K, 02090C4420K, 02090C4430L, 02090C4435L, 02090C4440K, 02090C4445L, 02090C4455K, 02090C4460K, 02090C4465L, 02090C4470K, 02090C4480K, 02090C4485K, 02090C4490K, 02090C4495K, 02090C4505K, 02090C4510K, 02090C4515K, 02090C4520K, 02090C4550K, 02090C4575K, 02090C4600K, 02090C4625K, 02090C5250K, 02090C5275K, 02090C5300K, 02090C5325K, 02090C5350K, 02090C5355K, 02090C5360K, 02090C5365K, 02090C5370K, 02090C5380K, 02090C5385K, 02090C5390K, 02090C5395K, 02090C5405L, 02090C5410L, 02090C5415K, 02090C5420K, 02090C5430K, 02090C5435K, 02090C5440K, 02090C5445K, 02090C5455K, 02090C5460K, 02090C5465K, 02090C5470K, 02090C5500K, 02090C5525K, 02090C5700K, 02090C5725K, 02090C5750K, 02090C5775K, 02090C5800K, 02090C5825K, 02090C6375K, 02090C6400K, 02090C6405K, 02090C6410K, 02090C6415K, 02090C6420K, 02090C6450K, 02090C6475K, 02090C6500K, 3 Page 831 of 1055 Table 1: Listing of NFIP Jurisdictions (continued) HUC-8 If Not Included, Sub- Location of Flood Community CID Basin(s) Located on FIRM Panel(s) Hazard Data (continued) 02090C6525K, 02090C6550K, 02090C6575K, Fairbanks 02090C6600K, 02090C6625K, 02090C6650K, 1 North Star 02090C6675K , 02090C7225K, Borough 02090C7250K, 02090C7275K, 02090C7300K, 02090C7325K, 02090C7350K, 02090C7375K, 02090C7400K 1 Panel not printed – No Special Flood Hazard Areas 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report The NFIP encourages State and local governments to implement sound floodplain management programs. To assist in this endeavor, each FIS Report provides floodplain data, which may include a combination of the following: 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual chance flood elevations (the 1-percent-annual-chance flood elevation is also referred to as the Base Flood Elevation (BFE)); delineations of the 1-percent-annual-chance and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplains; and 1-percent-annual-chance f loodway. This information is presented on the FIRM and/or in many components of the FIS Report, including Flood Profiles, Floodway Data tables, Summary of Non-Coastal Stillwater Elevations tables, and Coastal Transect Parameters tables (not all components may be provided for a specific FIS). This section presents important considerations for using the information contained in this FIS Report and the FIRM, including changes in format and content. Figures 1, 2, and 3 present information that applies to using the FIRM with the FIS Report. • Part or all of this FIS Report may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS Report may be revised by a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS Report. Refer to Section 6.5 of this FIS Report for information about the process to revise the FIS Report and/or FIRM. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials by contacting the community repository to obtain the most current FIS Report components. Communities participating in the NFIP have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. Community map repository addresses are provided in Table 30, “Map Repositories,” within this FIS Report. • New FIS Reports are frequently developed for multiple communities, such as entire counties. A countywide FIS Report incorporates previous FIS Reports for individual communities and the unincorporated area of the county (if not jurisdictional) into a single document and supersedes those documents for the purposes of the NFIP. The initial Boroughwide FIS Report for Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska became effective on January 2, 1992. Refer to Table 27 for information about subsequent revisions to the FIRMs. 4 Page 832 of 1055 The CRS is a voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Visit the FEMA Web site at www.f ema.gov/flood-insurance/rules- legislation/community-rating-system or contact your appropriate FEMA Regional Office for more information about this program. • FEMA does not design, build, inspect, operate, maintain, or certify levees. FEMA is responsible for accurately identifying flood hazards and communicating those hazards and risks to affected stakeholders. FEMA has identified one or more levee systems in this jurisdiction summarized in Table 8 of this FIS Report. For FEMA to accredit the identified levee systems, the levee systems must meet the criteria of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Section 65.10 (44 CFR 65.10), titled “Mapping of Areas Protected by Levee Systems.” Information on the levee systems in this jurisdiction can be obtained from the USACE National Levee Database (https://levees.sec.usace.army.mil/). For additional information, the user should contact the appropriate jurisdiction floodplain administrator and the levee owner or sponsor. • FEMA has developed a Guide to Flood Maps (FEMA 258) and online tutorials to assist users in accessing the information contained on the FIRM. These include how to read panels and step-by-step instructions to obtain specific information. To obtain this guide and other assistance in using the FIRM, visit the FEMA Web site at www.fema.gov/flood-maps/tutorials. The FIRM Index in Figure 1 shows the overall FIRM panel layout within Fairbanks North Star Borough, and also displays the panel number and effective date for each FIRM panel in the county. Other information shown on the FIRM Index includes community boundaries, flooding sources, watershed boundaries, and USGS HUC-8 codes. 5 Page 833 of 1055 Figure 1 FIRM Panel Index 0025F 1/8/2027 GOLDSTREAM HUC8 19080309 PUBLIC USE Tolovana River AREA 6 025009 «¬ 1750K 1800K 1850K 1900K ELLIOTT HWY 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 0075G 1/8/2027 1775K 1825K 1875K 1/8/2027 1925K 2 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 «¬ 1/8/2027 STEESE HWY 2250K 2300K 2350K 2400K 2450K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 0100G 2425K 2275K 2475K TANANA VALLEY 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 Chatanika River 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 STATE FOREST 2325K 2375K HUC8 1/8/2027 025009 1/8/2027 3400K 3225K 3450K *3500K 3625K 19080306 MURPHY *3300K 1/8/2027 3575K 1/8/2027 DOME RD 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 Chena River 1/8/2027 3375K 3525K 1/8/2027 3250K 3425K *3475K 3325K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 3650K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 CHENA 1/8/2027 Hopper 1/8/2027 RD Goldstream Pearl 3600K HOT SPRINGS *3275K Creek Creek 3350K CreekHappy Iowa Steele Creek Creek Isabella Creek 3550K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 Creek 6 Chena River «¬ Clear 1/8/2027 CACHE Creek Little Chena River CREEK RD Mullen CREAMER'S FIELD THE ALASKA RAILROAD FAIRBANKS NORTH STANDARD Chena RiverPotlatch CreekSlough 3 Chena Slough MIGRATORY CREEK RD «¬ STAR BOROUGH WATERFOWL OLD NENANACripple HWY Creek 025009 REFUGE RD PARKS HWY TANANA VALLEY 025009 FORT TRANSMITTER 3 STATE FOREST ¬« CITY OF WAINWRIGHT Tanana River Moose Creek 025009 FAIRBANKS MILITARY EIELSON 025009 RESERVATION AIR FORCE TANANA FLATS BASE 025009 CITY OF TRAINING AREA 025009 025009 NORTH POLE French Creek 025009 TANANA VALLEY Little Salcha STATE FOREST RichardsonOverflow HUC8 19080307 FAIRBANKS NORTH River STAR BOROUGH 025009 Tanana SalchaRiver Flats-Tanana River 025009 HARDING LAKE SALCHA RIVER STATE STATE RECREATION RECREATION SITE AREA HARTMAN LAKE 025009 HARDING LAKE 025009 HUC8 19080305 Salcha 1 inch = 45,057 feet 1:540,680 River feet NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 0 21,250 42,500 85,000 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP INDEX FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, ALAKSA And Incorporated Areas Map Projection PAGE 1 OF 6 NAD 1983 State Plane Alaska 3 FIPS 5003 Feet PANELS PRINTED: North American Datum of 1983 0025, 0075, 0100, 1750, 1775, 1800, 1825, 1850, 1875, 1900, 1925, 2250, 2275, 2300, 2325, 2350, 2375, 2400, 2425, 2450, 2475, 3225, 3250, 3325, 3350, 3375, 3400, 3425, 3450, 3525, 3550, 3575, THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING 3600, 3625, 3650 DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT MAP NUMBER HTTPS://MSC.FEMA.GOV 02090CIND1C SEE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EFFECTIVE DATE January 08, 2027 * PANEL NOT PRINTED - NO SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS 6 Page 834 of 1055 Figure 1 FIRM Panel Index (continued) HUC8 19080309 Tolovana River GOLDSTREAM «¬6 PUBLIC USE ELLIOTT HWY AREA 025009 CREAMER'S FIELD 2 MIGRATORY «¬ STEESE HWY FAIRBANKS NORTH WATERFOWL STAR BOROUGH REFUGE 025009 025009 FORT TANANA VALLEY Chatanika River WAINWRIGHT STATE FOREST HUC8 MILITARY 025009 CITY OF TANANA VALLEY 19080306 MURPHY RESERVATION DOME RD FAIRBANKS STATE FOREST Chena River 025009 025009 025009 CHENA Hopper RD Goldstream Pearl HOT SPRINGS Creek Creek CreekHappy Iowa Steele Creek Creek Isabella Creek TANANA VALLEY Creek 6 Chena River «¬ STATE FOREST *0179F Clear CACHE 3/17/2014 Creek Little Chena River 025009 CREEK RD Mullen 4600K THE ALASKA RAILROAD STANDARD Chena RiverPotlatch CreekSlough 3 Chena Slough 4550K 1/8/2027 CREEK RD «¬ OLD NENANACripple HWY Creek 1/8/2027 4575K 4625K PARKS HWY RD 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 5250K 5300K TRANSMITTER ¬«3 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 Tanana River CITY OF Moose Creek 5525K NORTH POLE 5275K 1/8/2027 0225K 5325K 025009 1/8/2027 0200G 1/8/2027 EIELSON 5500K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 AIR FORCE French Creek FAIRBANKS NORTH BASE 6500K STAR BOROUGH 0225K 025009 1/8/2027 025009 1/8/2027 Little Salcha 6525K RichardsonOverflow HUC8 19080307 River 1/8/2027 TANANA VALLEY Tanana HUC8 STATE FOREST SalchaRiver 19080305 Flats-Tanana River 7325K 025009 Salcha SALCHA RIVER STATE 1/8/2027 River RECREATION SITE HARTMAN LAKE 7350K HARDING 025009 HARDING LAKE 1/8/2027 LAKE TANANA VALLEY STATE 0325E STATE FOREST 2 1/2/1992 «¬ RECREATION 025009 BIRCH LAKE RICHARDSON HWY AREA 025009 0350G 1/8/2027 1 inch = 45,057 feet 1:540,680 feet NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 0 21,250 42,500 85,000 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP INDEX FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, ALAKSA And Incorporated Areas Map Projection PAGE 2 OF 6 NAD 1983 State Plane Alaska 3 FIPS 5003 Feet PANELS PRINTED: North American Datum of 1983 0200, 0225, 0325, 0350, 4550, 4575, 4600, 4625, 5250, 5275, 5300, 5325, 5500, 5525, 6500, 6525, 7325, 7350 THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT MAP NUMBER HTTPS://MSC.FEMA.GOV 02090CIND2C SEE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EFFECTIVE DATE January 08, 2027 * PANEL NOT PRINTED - NO SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS 7 Page 835 of 1055 Figure 1 FIRM Panel Index (continued) «¬6 Chatanika River HUC8 19080306 Chena River HUC8 19080309 CREAMER'S FIELD Tolovana River MIGRATORY WATERFOWL REFUGE GOLDSTREAM 025009 TANANA VALLEY PUBLIC USE AREA STATE FOREST 025009 STEESE OLD MURPHY DOME RD HWY 025009 ¬«2 GOLDSTREAM RD FAIRBANKS MURPHY DOME RD 3370K 3395K NORTH STAR 1/8/2027 3420K 1/8/2027 3445K 3495K Creek 1/8/2027 Iowa BOROUGH 1/8/2027 3470K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 3415K 3440K 3465K Smallwood 025009 THE ALASKA RAILROAD HappyGoldstream Creek 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 Creek 3365K 3390K 1/8/2027 6 Steele Creek Hopper Creek Creek «¬ 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 Columbia 3490K Isabella 3515K Creek Creek 1/8/2027 4351K 4356K 4376K 1/8/2027 4310K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 4335K 4352K 4357K 4377K 4485K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 4385K 4435L Little Chena River 4460K 1/8/2027 4510K 1/8/2027 4410L 1/8/2027 4405K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 PARKSHWY 4353K 4358K Chena River 4378K 4383K 1/8/2027 4455K 3 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 4430L Potlatch ¬« 4305K 4330K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 Creek 4334K Clear 1/8/2027 4480K 4354K 4359K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 4379K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 Creek 4505K 1/8/2027 4342K Cripple Creek 4362K 4387K BRADWAY 1/8/2027 4367K Chena 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 RD 4340K 4361K River 4315K 4366K 4415K 4465L 1/8/2027 4386K 4391K 4440K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 4363K 4368K 4515K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 4389K 4470K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 4320K 4369K 4495K 4364K 4445L 1/8/2027 4345K 1/8/2027 4420K 4520K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 4388K 4395K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 4490K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 Chena Slough 1/8/2027 RICHARDSON OLD Tanana River CITY OF HWY FAIRBANKS CITY OF TRANSMITTER RD 025009 NORTH POLE Moose Creek TANANA VALLEY 025009 French Creek STATE FOREST FORT WAINWRIGHT RICHARDSON HWY 025009 RAILROAD MILITARY ALASKA RESERVATION EIELSON THE 025009 AIR FORCE FAIRBANKS BASE HUC8 19080307 NORTH STAR 025009 «¬ BOROUGH Tanana 2 Tanana River 025009 Flats-Tanana River «¬2 SALCHA RIVER STATE RichardsonOverflow TANANA VALLEY RECREATION STATE FOREST SITE Little Salcha River 025009 025009 TANANA VALLEY STATE FOREST Salcha River 025009 1 inch = 22,000 feet 1:264,000 feet NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 0 10,000 20,000 40,000 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP INDEX FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, ALAKSA And Incorporated Areas Map Projection PAGE 3 OF 6 NAD 1983 State Plane Alaska 3 FIPS 5003 Feet PANELS PRINTED: North American Datum of 1983 3365, 3370, 3390, 3395, 3415, 3420, 3440, 3445, 3465, 3470, 3490, 3495, 3515, 4305, 4310, 4315, 4320, 4330, 4334, 4335, 4340, 4342, 4345, 4351, 4352, 4353, 4354, 4356, 4357, 4358, 4359, 4361, 4362, 4363, 4364, 4366, 4367, 4368, THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING 4369, 4376, 4377, 4378, 4379, 4383, 4385, 4386, 4387, 4388, 4389, 4391, 4395, 4405, 4410, 4415, 4420, 4430, 4435, DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT 4440, 4445, 4455, 4460, 4465, 4470, 4480, 4485, 4490, 4495, 4505, 4510, 4515, 4520 MAP NUMBER HTTPS://MSC.FEMA.GOV 02090CIND3C SEE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EFFECTIVE DATE January 08, 2027 Page 836 of8 1055 Figure 1 FIRM Panel Index (continued) CREAMER'S FIELD HUC8 19080309 Iowa Creek MIGRATORY WATERFOWL REFUGEHopper Tolovana River Creek 025009Steele Creek Columbia CHENA HOT SPRINGS RD Creek «¬6 CITY OF Little Chena River Chena River FAIRBANKS Chena River 025009 RD TANANA VALLEY Potlatch Creek NORDALE Chena Slough STATE FOREST 025009 THE ALASKA RAILROAD BADGER RD HUC8 19080306 R/W LINE TANANA LEVEE BRADWAY RD TRIA RD 2 «¬ CITY OF Chena River FORT NORTH POLE FAIRBANKS NORTH WAINWRIGHT 025009 STAR BOROUGH MILITARY 025009 RESERVATION 025009 TRANSMITTER RD 5455K 1/8/2027 5355K 5360K 5380K 5385K 5405L 5410L 5435K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 ¬«2 1/8/2027 Moose Creek 5350K 5430K 1/8/2027 5460K EIELSON 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 AIR FORCE BASE 5440K 025009 5365K 5370K 5390K 5395K 5415K 5420K 1/8/2027 5445K 5465K 5470K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 TananaRiver French Creek 6405K 6410K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 6375K 6400K 6450K 6475K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 FAIRBANKS NORTH 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 STAR BOROUGH 6415K 025009 RICHARDSON HWY 1/8/2027 Little Salcha River HUC8 19080307 6420K Tanana 1/8/2027 Flats-Tanana River SALCHA RIVER STATE RECREATION SITE SalchaRiver 025009 HUC8 19080305 HARDING LAKE STATE Salcha RECREATION AREA River 025009 HARTMAN LAKE TANANA VALLEY HARDING STATE FOREST LAKE 025009 7225K 7250K 7275K 7300K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 RICHARDSON HWY «¬2 BIRCH LAKE 1 inch = 19,000 feet 1:228,000 feet NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 0 8,750 17,500 35,000 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP INDEX FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, ALAKSA And Incorporated Areas Map Projection PAGE 4 OF 6 NAD 1983 State Plane Alaska 3 FIPS 5003 Feet PANELS PRINTED: North American Datum of 1983 5350, 5355, 5360, 5365, 5370, 5380, 5385, 5390, 5395, 5405, 5410, 5415, 5420, 5430, 5435, 5440, 5445, 5455, 5460, 5465, 5470, 6375, 6400, 6405, 6410, 6415, 6420, 6450, 6475, 7225, 7250, 7275, 7300 THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT MAP NUMBER HTTPS://MSC.FEMA.GOV 02090CIND4C SEE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EFFECTIVE DATE January 08, 2027 9 Page 837 of 1055 Figure 1 FIRM Panel Index (continued) «¬6 STEESE HWY HUC8 19080309 Tolovana River HUC8 19080306 Chena River Chena River CHENA HOT SPRINGS RD ¬«6 HUC8 19080305 FAIRBANKS NORTH Salcha River STAR BOROUGH 025009 0250F 1/8/2027 0300E 1/2/1992 5700K 5750K 5800K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 0275F 1/8/2027 5725K 5775K 5825K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 SalchaRiver 6550K 6600K 6650K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 0250F 1/8/2027 6575K 6625K *6675K 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 7375K 1/8/2027 7400K 1/8/2027 0375F «¬2 RICHARDSON 1/8/2027 HWY *0400E 9/11/1979 HUC8 19080307 QUARTZ LAKE Tanana Flats-Tanana River 1 inch = 45,057 feet 1:540,680 feet NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 0 21,250 42,500 85,000 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP INDEX FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, ALAKSA And Incorporated Areas Map Projection PAGE 5 OF 6 NAD 1983 State Plane Alaska 3 FIPS 5003 Feet PANELS PRINTED: North American Datum of 1983 0250, 0275, 0300, 0375, 5700, 5725, 5750, 5775, 5800, 5825, 6550, 6575, 6600, 6625, 6650, 7375, 7400 THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT MAP NUMBER HTTPS://MSC.FEMA.GOV 02090CIND5C SEE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EFFECTIVE DATE January 08, 2027 * PANEL NOT PRINTED - NO SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS 10 Page 838 of 1055 Figure 1 FIRM Panel Index (continued) 0050E 1/2/1992 HUC8 19080309 Tolovana River STEESE HWY «¬6 STEESE HWY 0125F 2750K 1/8/2027 1/8/2025 2700K 1/8/2027 NorthChena Fork River Monument Creek 0150E 2725K 2775K 1/2/1992 1/8/2027 0175E 1/8/2027 1/2/1992 3675K 3725K HUC8 19080305 1/8/2027 1/8/2027 HUC8 19080306 Salcha River Chena CHENA HOT SPRINGS RD River 6 3750K «¬ Chena River 1/8/2027 3700K 1/8/2027 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH 025009 SalchaRiver 1 inch = 45,057 feet 1:540,680 feet NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 0 21,250 42,500 85,000 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP INDEX FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, ALAKSA And Incorporated Areas Map Projection PAGE 6 OF 6 NAD 1983 State Plane Alaska 3 FIPS 5003 Feet PANELS PRINTED: North American Datum of 1983 0050, 0125, 0150, 0175, 2700, 2725, 2750, 2775, 3675, 3700, 3725, 3750 THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT MAP NUMBER HTTPS://MSC.FEMA.GOV 02090CIND6C SEE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EFFECTIVE DATE January 08, 2027 11 Page 839 of 1055 Each FIRM panel may contain specific notes to the user that provide additional information regarding the flood hazard data shown on that map. However, the FIRM panel does not contain enough space to show all the notes that may be relevant in helping to better understand the information on the panel. Figure 2 contains the full list of these notes. Figure 2: FIRM Notes to Users NOTES TO USERS For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), available products associated with this FIRM including historic versions of this FIRM, how to order products, or the National Flood Insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood Map Service Center website at msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or obtained directly from the website. Users may determine the current map date for each FIRM panel by visiting the FEMA Flood Map Service Center website or by calling the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange. Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed above. For community and countywide map dates, ref er to Tab le 27 in this FIS Report. To determine if flood insurance is available in the community, contact your insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620. PRELIMINARY FIS REPORT: FEMA maintains information about map features, such as street locations and names, in or near designated flood hazard areas. Requests to revise information in or near designated flood hazard areas may be provided to FEMA during the community review period, at the final Consultation Coordination Officer's meeting, or during the statutory 90-day appeal period. Approved requests for changes will be shown on the final printed FIRM. The map is for use in administering the NFIP. It may not identify all areas subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage sources of small size. Consult the community map repository to find updated or additional flood hazard information. BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS: For more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) and/or floodways have been determined, consult the Flood Profiles and Floodway Data and/or Summary of Non-Coastal Stillwater Elevations tables within this FIS Report. Use the flood elevation data within the FIS Report in conjunction with the FIRM for construction and/or floodplain management. 12 Page 840 of 1055 Figure 2. FIRM Notes to Users (continued) FLOODWAY INFORMATION: Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections and interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widths and other pertinent floodway data are provided in the FIS Report for this jurisdiction. FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURE INFORMATION: Certain areas not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may have reduced flood hazards due to flood control structures. Refer to Section 4.3 "Dams and Other Flood Hazard Reduction Measures" of this FIS Report for information on flood control structures for this jurisdiction. PROJECTION INFORMATION: The projection used in the preparation of the map was State Plane Alaska FIPS Zone 5003. The horizontal datum was the North American Datum of 1983 NAD83, GRS1980 spheroid. Differences in datum, spheroid, projection or State Plane zones used in the production of FIRMs for adjacent jurisdictions may result in slight positional differences in map features across jurisdiction boundaries. These differences do not affect the accuracy of the FIRM. ELEVATION DATUM: Flood elevations on the FIRM are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion between the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at www.ngs.noaa.gov. Local vertical monuments may have been used to create the map. To obtain current monument information, please contact the appropriate local community listed in Tab le 30 of this FIS Report. BASE MAP INFORMATION: Base map information shown on the FIRM was provided by United States Geological Survey (USGS). The base map shown is the USGS National Map: Orthoimagery. Last refreshed December, 2020. For information about base maps, refer to Section 6.2 “Base Map” in this FIS Report. The map reflects more detailed and up-to-date stream channel configurations than those shown on the previous FIRM for this jurisdiction. The floodplains and floodways that were transferred from the previous FIRM may have been adjusted to conform to these new stream channel configurations. As a result, the Flood Profiles and Floodway Data tables may reflect stream channel distances that differ from what is shown on the map. Corporate limits shown on the map are based on the best data available at the time of publication. Because changes due to annexations or de-annexations may have occurred after the map was published, map users should contact appropriate community officials to verify current corporate limit locations. NOTES FOR FIRM INDEX REVISIONS TO INDEX: As new studies are performed and FIRM panels are updated within Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska, corresponding revisions to the FIRM Index will be incorporated within the FIS Report to reflect the effective dates of those panels. Please refer to Tab le 27 of this FIS Report to determine the most recent FIRM revision date for each community. The most recent FIRM panel effective date will correspond to the most recent index date. 13 Page 841 of 1055 Figure 2. FIRM Notes to Users (continued) SPECIAL NOTES FOR SPECIFIC FIRM PANELS This Notes to Users section was created specifically for Fairbanks North Star Borough, ALASKA, effective January 8, 2027. ACCREDITED LEVEE SYSTEM: Check with your local community to obtain more information on the levee system(s) shown as providing flood hazard reduction on this panel. To mitigate flood hazards in residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to review the community’s emergency preparedness plan and to consider flood insurance and floodproofing or other risk reduction measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested parties should visit www.fema.gov/flood-insurance. NON-ACCREDITED LEVEE SYSTEM: This panel contains a levee system that has not been accredited and is therefore not recognized as reducing the 1-percent-annual-chance flood hazard. FLOOD RISK REPORT: A Flood Risk Report (FRR) may be available for many of the flooding sources and communities referenced in this FIS Report. The FRR is provided to increase public awareness of flood risk by helping communities identify the areas within their jurisdictions that have the greatest risks. Although non-regulatory, the information provided within the FRR can assist communities in assessing and evaluating mitigation opportunities to reduce these risks. It can also be used by communities developing or updating flood risk mitigation plans. These plans allow communities to identify and evaluate opportunities to reduce potential loss of life and property. However, the FRR is not intended to be the final authoritative source of all flood risk data for a project area; rather, it should be used with other data sources to paint a comprehensive picture of flood risk. 14 Page 842 of 1055 Each FIRM panel contains an abbreviated legend for the features shown on the maps. However, the FIRM panel does not contain enough space to show the legend for all map features. Figure 3 shows the full legend of all map features. Note that not all of these features may appear on the FIRM panels in Fairbanks North Star Borough. Figure 3: Map Legend for FIRM SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS: The 1% annual chance flood, also known as the base flood or 100-year flood, has a 1% chance of happening or being exceeded each year. Special Flood Hazard Areas are subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood. The Base Flood Elevation is the water surface elevation of the 1% annual chance flood. The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. See note for specific types. If the floodway is too narrow to be shown, a note is shown. Special Flood Hazard Areas subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood (Zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V and VE) Zone A The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance floodplains. No base (1% annual chance) flood elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown within this zone. Zone AE The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance floodplains. Base flood elevations derived from the hydraulic analyses are shown within this zone. Zone AH The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 1% annual chance shallow flooding (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Whole-foot BFEs derived from the hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. Zone AO The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 1% annual chance shallow flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Average whole-foot depths derived from the hydraulic analyses are shown within this zone. Zone AR The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas that were formerly protected from the 1% annual chance flood by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone AR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide protection from the 1% annual chance or greater flood. Zone A99 The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas of the 1% annual chance floodplain that will be protected by a Federal flood protection system where construction has reached specified statutory milestones. No base flood elevations or flood depths are shown within this zone. Zone V The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves. Base flood elevations are not shown within this zone. Zone VE Zone VE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves. Base flood elevations derived from the coastal analyses are shown within this zone as static whole-foot elevations that apply throughout the zone. Regulatory Floodway determined in Zone AE. 15 Page 843 of 1055 Figure 3: Map Legend for FIRM (continued) OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD Shaded Zone X: Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood hazards and areas of 1% annual chance flood hazards with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile. Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard – Zone X: The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance floodplains that are determined based on future-conditions hydrology. No base flood elevations or flood depths are shown within this zone. Area with Reduced Flood Hazard due to Accredited or Provisionally Accredited Levee System: Area is shown as reduced flood hazard from the 1-percent-annual-chance or greater flood by a levee system. Overtopping or failure of any levee system is possible. See Notes to Users for important information. Area with Undetermined Flood Hazard due to Non-Accredited Levee System: Analysis and mapping procedures for non-accredited levee systems were applied resulting in a flood insurance rate zone where flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. OTHER AREAS Zone D (Areas of Undetermined Flood Hazard): The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to unstudied areas where flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. NO SCREEN Unshaded Zone X: Areas of minimal flood hazard. FLOOD HAZARD AND OTHER BOUNDARY LINES Flood Zone Boundary (white line on ortho-photography-based mapping; gray line on vector-based mapping) (ortho) (vector) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA): Indicates the inland limit of the area affected by waves greater than 1.5 feet GENERAL STRUCTURES Aqueduct Channel Channel, Culvert, Aqueduct, or Storm Sewer Culvert Storm Sewer __________ Dam Jetty Dam, Jetty, Weir Weir Levee, Dike, or Floodwall 16 Page 844 of 1055 Figure 3: Map Legend for FIRM (continued) Bridge Bridge REFERENCE MARKERS River mile Markers CROSS SECTION & TRANSECT INFORMATION Lettered Cross Section with Regulatory Water Surface Elevation (BFE) Numbered Cross Section with Regulatory Water Surface Elevation (BFE) Unlettered Cross Section with Regulatory Water Surface Elevation (BFE) Coastal Transect Profile Baseline: Indicates the modeled flow path of a stream and is shown on FIRM panels for all valid studies with profiles or otherwise established base flood elevation. Coastal Transect Baseline: Used in the coastal flood hazard model to represent the 0.0-foot elevation contour and the starting point for the transect and the measuring point for the coastal mapping. Base Flood Elevation Line ZONE AE Static Base Flood Elevation value (shown under zone label) (EL 16) ZONE AO Zone designation with Depth (DEPTH 2) ZONE AO (DEPTH 2) Zone designation with Depth and Velocity (VEL 15 FPS) BASE MAP FEATURES River, Stream or Other Hydrographic Feature Missouri Creek Interstate Highway U.S. Highway State Highway County Highway 17 Page 845 of 1055 Figure 3: Map Legend for FIRM (continued) MAPLE LANE Street, Road, Avenue Name, or Private Drive if shown on Flood Profile Railroad RAILROAD Horizontal Reference Grid Line Horizontal Reference Grid Ticks Secondary Grid Crosshairs Land Grant Name of Land Grant 7 Section Number R. 43 W. T. 22 N. Range, Township Number 4276000mE Horizontal Reference Grid Coordinates (UTM) 365000 FT Horizontal Reference Grid Coordinates (State Plane) 80° 16’ 52.5” Corner Coordinates (Latitude, Longitude) 18 Page 846 of 1055 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 1-percent-annual- chance (100-year) flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management purposes. The 0.2-percent-annual-chance (500-year) flood is employed to indicate additional areas of flood hazard in the community. Each flooding source included in the project scope has been studied and mapped using professional engineering and mapping methodologies that were agreed upon by FEMA and Fairbanks North Star Borough as appropriate to the risk level. Flood risk is evaluated based on factors such as known flood hazards and projected impact on the built environment. Engineering analyses were performed for each studied flooding source to calculate its 1-percent-annual-chance f lood elevations; elevations corresponding to other floods (e.g. 10-, 4-, 2-, 0.2-percent annual chance, etc.) may have also been computed for certain flooding sources. Engineering models and methods are described in detail in Section 5.0 of this FIS Report. The modeled elevations at cross sections were used to delineate the floodplain boundaries on the FIRM; between cross sections, the boundaries were interpolated using elevation data from various sources. More information on specific mapping methods is provided in Section 6.0 of this FIS Report. Depending on the accuracy of available topographic data (Table 22), study methodologies employed (Section 5.0), and flood risk, certain flooding sources may be mapped to show both the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries, regulatory water surface elevations (BFEs), and/or a regulatory floodway. Similarly, other flooding sources may be mapped to show only the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary on the FIRM, without published water surface elevations. In cases where the 1-percent and 0.2- percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries are close together, only the 1-percent- annual-chance floodplain boundary is shown on the FIRM. Figure 3, “Map Legend for FIRM”, describes the flood zones that are used on the FIRMs to account for the varying levels of flood risk that exist along flooding sources within the project area. Table 2 and Table 3 indicate the flood zone designations for each flooding source and each community within Fairbanks North Star Borough, respectively. Table 2, “Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report,” lists each flooding source, including its study limits, affected communities, mapped zone on the FIRM, and the completion date of its engineering analysis from which the flood elevations on the FIRM and in the FIS Report were derived. Descriptions and dates for the latest hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the flooding sources are shown in Table 12. Floodplain boundaries for these flooding sources are shown on the FIRM (published separately) using the symbology described in Figure 3. On the map, the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain corresponds to the SFHAs. The 0.2-percent-annual-chance f loodplain shows areas that, although out of the regulatory floodplain, are still subject to flood hazards. Small areas within the floodplain boundaries may lie above the flood elevations but cannot be shown due to limitations of the map scale and/or lack of detailed topographic data. The procedures to remove these areas from the SFHA are described in Section 6.5 of this FIS Report. 19 Page 847 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Approximately 1.39 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of Ace Creek 19040506 1.4 N A 2022 Borough Saint Patrick Creek confluence with Saint Patrick Creek Approximately 3.28 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with Alder Creek miles upstream of 19040506 3.6 N A 2022 Borough Cripple Creek Parks Highway Inlet of Ballaine Fairbanks North Star At Farmers Loop Lake, approximately Ballaine Lake 19040506 0.1 N A 2022 Borough Road 600 feet upstream of Farmers Loop Road Approximately 1.9 Approximately 2.95 Fairbanks North Star miles upstream of miles upstream of Big Eldorado Creek 19040509 1.1 N A 2022 Borough confluence with confluence with Goldstream Creek Goldstream Creek Fairbanks North Star At the outlet of At the inlet of Paul Caribou Lake 19040506 0.9 A 2022 Borough Caribou Lake Lake Approximately 1.5 Approximately 21.2 Fairbanks North Star miles downstream Chatanika River miles upstream of 19040509 110.4 N A 2022 Borough of Murphy Dome Steese Highway Road Approximately 68 miles upstream of At Chena Lakes Fairbanks North Star Chena Lakes Access Chena River Access Road 19040506 67.9 N A 2022 Borough Road (Moose Creek (Moose Creek Dam) Dam) at Chena Hot Springs Road 20 Page 848 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report (continued) Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Fairbanks North Star Confluence with Chena River Borough; Fairbanks, City Moose Creek Dam 19040506 47.1 Y AE 2008 Tanana River of Approximately 700 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with feet upstream of Chena Slough Borough; North Pole, 19040506 16.1 Y AE 2018 Chena River Richardson Highway City of Bridge (MP359) Approximately 100 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with Clear Creek feet upstream of 19040506 5.1 N A 2022 Borough Chena River Bradway Road Approximately 2.85 Approximately 0.38 Fairbanks North Star miles downstream miles upstream of Columbia Creek Borough; Fairbanks, City 19040506 4.4 N A 2022 of confluence with Chena Hot Springs of Wigwam Creek Road Approximately 2.85 Fairbanks North Star Upstream face of miles downstream of Columbia Creek Borough; Fairbanks, City 19040506 1.0 N A 2022 Prester John Drive confluence with of Wigwam Creek Approximately 1.35 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of Cripple Creek 19040506 1.4 N A 2022 Borough Alder Creek confluence with Alder Creek Approximately 400 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with Cripple Creek feet downstream of 19040506 7.5 N A 2022 Borough Alder Creek Chena Pump Road Fairbanks North Star Confluence with At the University Deadman Slough 19040506 2.4 N A 2022 Borough Chena River Avenue Approximately 1.07 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with French Creek miles upstream of 19040506 4.0 N A 2022 Borough Moose Creek Manchu Road 21 Page 849 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report (continued) Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Approximately 2.44 Approximately 7.19 miles downstream Fairbanks North Star miles upstream of French Creek of confluence with 19040507 11.3 N A 2022 Borough Pipeline Access Unnamed Tributary Road French Creek_1 Approximately 0.94 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with Garrison Slough miles upstream of 19040507 5.9 N A 2022 Borough Moose Creek Central Avenue Approximately 1.17 Approximately 4.17 Fairbanks North Star miles downstream Goldstream Creek miles upstream of 19040509 18.8 N A 2022 Borough of confluence with Ballaine Road Moose Creek Approximately 860 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with Happy Creek feet upstream of 19040506 4.3 N A 2022 Borough Cripple Creek Viking Court At outlet located in Fairbanks North Star Harding Lake northwest corner of At shoreline 19040505 3.9 N AE 4/15/2015 Borough lake boundary Approximately 2.42 Fairbanks North Star miles downstream At Chena Hot Hopper Creek 19040506 2.4 N A 2022 Borough of Chena Hot Springs Road Springs Road Approximately 4.24 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of Iowa Creek 19040506 4.2 N A 2022 Borough Little Chena River confluence with Little Chena River Approximately 1.63 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of Isabella Creek Borough; Fairbanks, City 19040506 3.9 N A 2023 Noyes Slough confluence with of Noyes Slough 22 Page 850 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report (continued) Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Approximately 2 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of Little Chena River 19040506 18.8 Y AE 2008 Borough Chena River Chena Hot Springs Road Approximately 5.39 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of Little Chena River 19040506 4.6 N A 2022 Borough Iowa Creek confluence with Iowa Creek Fairbanks North Star At the outlet of Little Little Lake At shoreline 19040505 0.4 N A 2022 Borough Lake Approximately 2.0 Approximately 2.94 Fairbanks North Star miles downstream miles upstream of Little Salcha River 19040507 18.9 N A 2022 Borough of Richardson Pipeline Access Highway Road Approximately 2 Confluence with Fairbanks North Star miles upstream of Monument Creek North Fork Chena 19040506 3.0 N A 2022 Borough Chena Hot Springs River Road Approximately 6.71 Approximately 20.79 Fairbanks North Star miles upstream of Moose Creek miles upstream of 19040507 14.1 N A 2022 Borough Richardson Richardson Highway Highway Approximately 0.14 Moose Creek Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040509 2.3 N A 2022 (Goldstream) Borough Goldstream Creek Moose Mountain Road Approximately 1.64 Approximately 6.71 Fairbanks North Star miles upstream of Moose Creek miles upstream of 19040507 5.1 N A 2022 Borough Richardson Richardson Highway Highway 23 Page 851 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report (continued) Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Approximately 3.19 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of Mullen Slough 19040506 3.2 N A 2022 Borough Chena River confluence with Chena River Approximately 3 North Fork Chena Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040506 6.7 N A 2022 River Borough Chena River Chena Hot Springs Road Approximately 18 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with feet downstream of Noyes Slough Borough; Fairbanks, City 19040506 5.7 Y AE 2008 Chena River Wendell Avenue/Old of Steese Hwy Approximately 0.43 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with O'Connor Creek miles upstream of 19040509 3.1 N A 2022 Borough Goldstream Creek Goldstream Road Pond at Approximately 0.5 Fairbanks North Star Pearl Creek downstream end of miles upstream of 19040506 2.1 N A 2022 Borough Pearl Creek Auburn Drive Approximately 8.89 miles upstream of Fairbanks North Star Confluence with Potlatch Creek confluence with 19040506 10.6 N A 2022 Borough Chena River Unnamed Tributary Potlatch Creek Approximately 1.2 Richardson Fairbanks North Star At Richardson miles upstream of 19040507 2.4 N A 2022 Overf low Borough Highway Equinox Lane Approximately 1.68 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of Saint Patrick Creek 19040506 1.8 N A 2022 Borough Happy Creek confluence with Ace Creek 24 Page 852 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report (continued) Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Approximately 2.40 Approximately 59 Fairbanks North Star miles downstream Salcha River miles upstream of 19040505 72.8 N A 2022 Borough of Richardson Richardson Highway Highway Approximately 5.66 miles upstream of Fairbanks North Star Confluence with Smallwood Creek confluence with 19040506 7.6 N A 2022 Borough Little Chena River Unnamed Tributary Smallwood Creek Inlet of Smith Lake, Fairbanks North Star Outlet of Smith Lake approximately 250 Smith Lake 19040506 0.3 N A 2022 Borough at Seismic Road feet upstream of Sheep Creek Road Approximately 1.58 Approximately 1.19 Fairbanks North Star miles downstream miles upstream of Steele Creek 19040506 5.0 N A 2022 Borough of Pipeline Access Chena Hot Springs Road Road Fairbanks North Star Below Fairbanks, Tanana River Near Salcha, Alaska 19040507 54.8 Y AE 2022 Borough Alaska Approximately 670 Fairbanks North Star feet downstream of Unnamed Ditch_1 At Davis Road 19040507 0.4 N A 2022 Borough South University Avenue Approximately 230 Approximately 1,600 Fairbanks North Star feet upstream of feet upstream of Unnamed Ditch_2 19040507 0.3 N A 2022 Borough Robert Mitchell Robert Mitchell Expressway Expressway Approximately 130 Approximately 1,000 Fairbanks North Star feet upstream of feet upstream of Unnamed Ditch_3 19040507 0.2 N A 2022 Borough Robert Mitchell Robert Mitchell Expressway Expressway 25 Page 853 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report (continued) Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Approximately 0.56 Fairbanks North Star At the upstream of Unnamed Lake_1 miles upstream of 19040507 0.6 N A 2022 Borough Private Road Private Road Fairbanks North Star At the outlet of At the inlet of Unnamed Lake_3 19040506 0.5 N A 2022 Borough Unnamed Lake_3 Unnamed Lake_3 Approximately 8.65 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040506 8.7 N A 2022 Chena River_1 Borough Chena River confluence with Chena River Approximately 4.81 Confluence with miles upstream of Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Unnamed Tributary confluence with 19040506 4.8 N A 2022 Chena River_1_1 Borough Chena River_1 Unnamed Tributary Chena River_1 Approximately 2.99 miles upstream of Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star At Laurence Road confluence with 19040506 4.0 N A 2022 Chena River_2 Borough Unnamed Tributary Chena River_2_2 Approximately 0.37 Confluence with Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star miles upstream of Unnamed Tributary confluence with 19040506 0.4 N A 2022 Chena River_2_2 Borough Chena River_2 Unnamed Tributary Chena River_2 Approximately 0.71 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040506 0.7 N A 2022 Chena River_3 Borough Chena River confluence with Chena River Approximately 450 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with feet upstream of D & 19040506 4.2 N A 2022 Chena River_4 Borough Chena River M Road 26 Page 854 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report (continued) Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Approximately 0.4 Approximately 1.50 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star miles upstream of miles upstream of 19040506 8.0 N A 2022 Chena River_5 Borough confluence with Peede Road Chena River Confluence with Approximately 1.96 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Unnamed Tributary miles upstream of 19040506 3.4 N A 2022 Chena River_5_1 Borough Chena River_5 Brock Road Confluence with Approximately 250 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Unnamed Tributary feet upstream of 19040506 1.8 N A 2022 Chena River_5_1_1 Borough Chena River_5_1 Willis Court Approximately 1.19 Confluence with Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star miles upstream of Unnamed Tributary 19040506 1.3 N A 2022 Chena River_5_2 Borough Pipeline Access Chena River_5 Road Confluence with Approximately 0.84 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Unnamed Tributary miles upstream of 19040506 3.0 N A 2022 Chena River_5_3 Borough Chena River_5 Repp Road Approximately 1.14 Confluence with Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star miles upstream of Unnamed Tributary confluence with 19040506 1.5 N A 2022 Chena River_5_4 Borough Chena River_5 Unnamed Tributary Chena River_5 Approximately 1.30 Confluence with miles upstream of Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Unnamed Tributary confluence with 19040506 1.3 N A 2022 Chena River_5_5 Borough Chena River_5_3 Unnamed Tributary Chena River_5_3 Confluence with Approximately 1.10 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Unnamed Tributary miles upstream of 19040506 1.7 N A 2022 Chena River_5_6 Borough Chena River_5_3 Repp Road 27 Page 855 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report (continued) Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Approximately 650 Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Fairbanks, City of feet upstream of 19040506 0.6 N A 2022 Chena River_6 Chena River Neely Road Approximately 200 Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Fairbanks, City of feet upstream of 19040506 0.5 N A 2022 Chena River_7 Chena River Steese Highway Approximately 500 Approximately 1,000 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star feet downstream of feet downstream of 19040506 7.9 N A 2022 Chena Slough_1 Borough Brock Road Laurance Road Confluence with Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star At Snowshoe Unnamed Tributary 19040506 1.4 N A 2022 Chena Slough_1_1 Borough Avenue Chena Slough_1 Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Approximately 2,500 Fairbanks North Star Chena Unnamed Tributary feet upstream of 19040506 1.4 N A 2022 Borough Slough_1_1_1 Chena Slough_1_1 Plack Road Confluence with Approximately 175 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Unnamed Tributary feet downstream of 19040506 1.2 N A 2022 Chena Slough_1_2 Borough Chena Slough_1 Deepwoods Drive Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with At Homestead Road 19040506 0.9 N A 2022 Columbia Creek_1 Borough Columbia Creek Approximately 400 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with feet upstream of Columbia 19040506 0.2 N A 2022 Borough Columbia Creek_1 Homestead Road Creek_1_2 South Approximately 1.15 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040506 1.1 N A 2022 Cripple Creek_1 Borough Cripple Creek confluence with Cripple Creek 28 Page 856 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report (continued) Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Approximately 1.28 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040507 5.7 N A 2022 French Creek_1 Borough French Creek Pipeline Access Road Approximately 0.69 Confluence with miles upstream of Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Unnamed Tributary confluence with 19040507 0.7 N A 2022 French Creek_1_1 Borough French Creek_1 Unnamed Tributary French Creek_1 Approximately 1.22 Confluence with Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star miles upstream of Unnamed Tributary confluence with 19040507 1.2 N A 2022 French Creek_1_2 Borough French Creek_1 Unnamed Tributary French Creek_1 Approximately 800 Approximately 6.50 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star feet downstream of miles upstream of 19040507 6.7 N A 2022 French Creek_2 Borough Pipeline Access Pipeline Access Road Road Approximately 0.42 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040507 0.4 N A 2022 French Creek_3 Borough French Creek confluence with French Creek Approximately 3.21 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040507 3.2 N A 2022 French Creek_4 Borough French Creek confluence with French Creek Approximately 1.06 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040507 1.1 N A 2022 Garrision Slough_1 Borough Garrison Slough confluence with Garrison Slough 29 Page 857 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report (continued) Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with Goldstream Goldstream Road 19040509 2.7 N A 2022 Borough Goldstream Creek Creek_1 Unnamed Tributary Approximately 500 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with Little Chena feet upstream of 19040506 0.5 N A 2022 Borough Little Chena River River_1 Chief Nickoli Loop Approximately 6.35 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of the Little Chena 19040506 6.4 N A 2022 Borough Little Chena River confluence with Little River_2 Chena River Approximately 1.07 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of the Little Salcha 19040507 1.1 N A 2022 Borough Little Salcha River confluence with Little River_1 Salcha River Approximately 0.38 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of the Little Salcha 19040507 0.4 N A 2022 Borough Little Salcha River confluence with Little River_2 Salcha River Approximately 100 Approximately 0.71 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star feet upstream of miles upstream of 19040507 0.7 N A 2022 Moose Creek_1 Borough confluence with confluence with Moose Creek Moose Creek Approximately 175 Approximately 500 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star feet upstream of feet upstream of 19040507 0.8 N A 2022 Moose Creek_2 Borough Claude Street Mildred Avenue Approximately 3.94 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040506 3.9 N A 2022 Potlatch Creek Borough Potlatch Creek confluence with Potlatch Creek 30 Page 858 of 1055 Table 2: Flooding Sources Included in this FIS Report (continued) Length (mi) Area (mi2) Zone HUC-8 Sub- (streams or (estuaries Floodway shown on Date of Flooding Source Community Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Basin(s) coastlines) or ponding) (Y/N) FIRM Analysis Approximately 1.22 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040506 1.2 N A 2022 Smallwood Creek Borough Smallwood Creek confluence with Smallwood Creek Approximately 0.61 Unnamed Tributary Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of 19040506 0.6 N A 2022 Wigwam Creek Borough Wigman Creek confluence with Wigman Creek Approximately 1.85 Fairbanks North Star Confluence with miles upstream of Wigwam Creek Borough; Fairbanks, City 19040506 1.8 N A 2022 Columbia Creek confluence with of Columbia Creek 31 Page 859 of 1055 2.2 Floodways Encroachment on floodplains, such as structures and fill, reduces flood-carrying capacity, increases flood heights and velocities, and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the NFIP, a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in balancing floodplain development against increasing flood hazard. With this approach, the area of the 1-percent-annual-chance f loodplain on a river is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe based on hydraulic modeling. The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of encroachment in order to carry the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. The floodway fringe is the area between the floodway and the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries where encroachment is permitted. The floodway must be wide enough so that the floodway fringe could be completely obstructed without increasing the water surface elevation of the 1-percent- annual-chance flood more than 1 foot at any point. Typical relationships between the floodway and the floodway fringe and their significance to floodplain development are shown in Figure 4. To participate in the NFIP, Federal regulations require communities to limit increases caused by encroachment to 1.0 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The floodways in this project are presented to local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted directly or that can be used as a basis for additional floodway projects. Figure 4: Floodway Schematic 32 Page 860 of 1055 Floodway widths presented in this FIS Report and on the FIRM were computed at cross sections. Between cross sections, the floodway boundaries were interpolated. For certain stream segments, floodways were adjusted so that the amount of floodwaters conveyed on each side of the floodplain would be reduced equally. The results of the floodway computations have been tabulated for selected cross sections and are shown in Table 23, “Floodway Data.” All floodways that were developed for this Flood Risk Project are shown on the FIRM using the symbology described in Figure 3. In cases where the floodway and 1-percent-annual- chance floodplain boundaries are either close together or collinear, only the floodway boundary has been shown on the FIRM. For information about the delineation of floodways on the FIRM, refer to Section 6.3. 2.3 Base Flood Elevations The hydraulic characteristics of flooding sources were analyzed to provide estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals. The BFE is the elevation of the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. These BFEs are most commonly rounded to the whole foot, as shown on the FIRM, but in certain circumstances or locations they may be rounded to 0.1 foot. Cross section lines shown on the FIRM may also be labeled with the BFE rounded to 0.1 foot. Whole-foot BFEs derived from engineering analyses that apply to coastal areas, areas of ponding, or other static areas with little elevation change may also be shown at selected intervals on the FIRM. Cross sections with BFEs shown on the FIRM correspond to the cross sections shown in the Floodway Data table and Flood Profiles in this FIS Report. For construction and/or floodplain management purposes, users are cautioned to use the flood elevation data presented in this FIS Report in conjunction with the data shown on the FIRM. For example, the user may use the FIRM to determine the stream station of a location of interest and then use the profile to determine the 1-percent annual chance elevation at that location. Because only selected cross sections may be shown on the FIRM for riverine areas, the profile should be used to obtain the flood elevation between mapped cross sections. Additionally, for riverine areas, whole-foot elevations shown on the FIRM may not exactly reflect the elevations derived from the hydraulic analyses; therefore, elevations obtained from the profile may more accurately reflect the results of the hydraulic analysis. 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones Some States and communities use non-encroachment zones to manage floodplain development. For flooding sources with medium flood risk, field surveys are often not collected and surveyed bridge and culvert geometry is not developed. Standard hydrologic and hydraulic analyses are still performed to determine BFEs in these areas. However, floodways are not typically determined, since specific channel profiles are not developed. To assist communities with managing floodplain development in these areas, a “non- encroachment zone” may be provided. While not a FEMA designated floodway, the non- encroachment zone represents that area around the stream that should be reserved to convey the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. As with a floodway, all surcharges must fall within the acceptable range in the non-encroachment zone. General setbacks can be used in areas of lower risk (e.g. unnumbered Zone A), but these 33 Page 861 of 1055 are not considered sufficient where unnumbered Zone A is replaced by Zone AE. The NFIP requires communities to ensure that any development in a non-encroachment area causes no increase in BFEs. Communities must generally prohibit development within the area defined by the non-encroachment width to meet the NFIP requirement. Non-encroachment determinations may be delineated where it is not possible to delineate floodways because specific channel profiles with bridge and culvert geometry were not developed. Any non-encroachment determinations for this Flood Risk Project have been tabulated for selected cross sections and are shown in Table 24, “Flood Hazard and Non- Encroachment Data for Selected Streams.” Areas for which non-encroachment zones are provided show BFEs and the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries mapped as zone AE on the FIRM but no floodways. 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas This section is not applicable to this Flood Risk Project. 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves This section is not applicable to this Flood Risk Project. Figure 5: Wave Runup Transect Schematic [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas This section is not applicable to this Flood Risk Project. 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas This section is not applicable to this Flood Risk Project. Figure 6: Coastal Transect Schematic [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action This section is not applicable to this Flood Risk Project. SECTION 3.0 – INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 3.1 National Flood Insurance Program Insurance Zones For flood insurance applications, the FIRM designates flood insurance rate zones as described in Figure 3, “Map Legend for FIRM.” Flood insurance zone designations are assigned to flooding sources based on the results of the hydraulic or coastal analyses. Insurance agents use the zones shown on the FIRM and depths and base flood elevations in this FIS Report in conjunction with information on structures and their contents to assign premium rates for flood insurance policies. 34 Page 862 of 1055 The 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of the areas of special flood hazards (e.g. Zones A, AE, V, VE, etc.), and the 0.2-percent-annual- chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of areas of additional f lood hazards. Table 3 lists the flood zones in Fairbanks North Star Borough. Table 3: Flood Zone Designations by Community Community Flood Zone(s) Fairbanks North Star Borough A, AE, AH, AO, X Fairbanks, City of A, AE, AH, X North Pole, City of A, AE, X SECTION 4.0 – AREA STUDIED 4.1 Basin Description Table 4 contains a description of the characteristics of the HUC-8 sub-basins within which each community falls. The table includes the main flooding sources within each basin, a brief description of the basin, and its drainage area. Table 4: Basin Characteristics HUC-8 HUC-8 Primary Sub -Basin Sub -Basin Flooding Drainage Area Name Number Source Description of Affected Area (square miles) Chena Central Fairbanks North Star Chena River 19080306 2,080 River Borough Salcha Eastern Fairbanks North Star Salcha River 19080305 2,221 River Borough Tanana Tanana Flats- Southwest Fairbanks North Flats-Tanana 19080307 6,102 Tanana Star Borough River River Tolovana Tolovana Northwest Fairbanks North 19080309 3,447 River River Star Borough 4.2 Principal Flood Problems Table 5 contains a description of the principal flood problems that have been noted for Fairbanks North Star Borough by flooding source. 35 Page 863 of 1055 Table 5: Principal Flood Problems Flooding Source Description of Flood Problems Chena The Chena River, meandering through the Fairbanks North Star Borough, River presents significant flooding challenges, particularly during the spring and summer months. This flooding is predominantly triggered by snowmelt and intense rainfall events. The river's gentle gradient exacerbates overbank flooding, though it does not contribute heavily to bank erosion. Another issue arises from the thawing permafrost, which has been linked to increased seepage that affects basements in the vicinity, necessitating the use of sump pumps to manage the infiltration. Historically, the Chena River has seen catastrophic floods, such as the one in 1967, which caused extensive damage and led to widespread evacuations, underlining the persistent threat it poses to the community. Tanana The Tanana River, with its vast drainage basin, also poses a flood risk to the River Fairbanks North Star Borough, although it features protective levees to mitigate some of the potential damage. Flooding along the Tanana is mainly due to significant runoff events that result in high groundwater levels, leading to overbank flows. Despite the existing levee systems, there is a risk of backwater flooding from the Chena River during concurrent flooding events, which can override the defenses and impact the areas along the lower reaches of the Tanana. This situation underscores the complexity of flood management in this region, where multiple water systems interact and where infrastructure must be continually assessed and enhanced to cope with these dynamic environmental challenges. Table 6 contains information about historic flood elevations in the communities within Fairbanks North Star Borough. Table 6: Historic Flooding Elevations Historic Approximate Flooding Peak Recurrence Source of Source Location (CFS) Event Date Interval (years) Data Chena River at August 15, Chena River 74,400 NA USGS Fairbanks 1967 Tanana River at August 15, Tanana River 125,000 NA USGS Fairbanks 1967 4.3 Dams and Other Flood Hazard Reduction Measures Table 7 contains information about non-levee flood hazard reduction measures within Fairbanks North Star Borough such as dams or jetties. Levee systems are addressed in Section 4.4 of this FIS Report. 36 Page 864 of 1055 Table 7: Dams and Other Flood Hazard Reduction Measures Flooding Structure Type of Source Name Measure Location Description of Measure Chena River Moose Dam Approximately 17 An earthfill structure serving Creek miles east of to divert high Chena River Dam Fairbanks flood flows to the Tanana River, thus minimizing flooding of areas between the dam and the mouth of the Chena River. Chena River Lakes Flood Control Project 4.4 Levee Systems For purposes of the NFIP, FEMA only recognizes levee systems that meet, and continue to meet, minimum design, operation, and maintenance standards that are consistent with comprehensive floodplain management criteria. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Section 65.10 (44 CFR 65.10) describes the information needed for FEMA to determine if a levee system reduces the flood hazard from the 1-percent-annual-chance flood. This information must be supplied to FEMA by the community or other party when a flood risk study or restudy is conducted, when FIRMs are revised, or upon FEMA request. FEMA reviews the information for the purpose of establishing the appropriate flood hazard zone. Levee systems that are determined to reduce the hazard from the 1-percent-annual- chance flood are accredited by FEMA. FEMA can also grant provisional accreditation to a levee system that was previously accredited on an effective FIRM and for which FEMA is awaiting data and/or documentation to demonstrate compliance with 44 CFR 65.10. These levee systems are referred to as Provisionally Accredited Levees, or PALs. Provisional accreditation provides communities and levee owners with a specified timeframe to obtain the necessary data to confirm the levee system’s accreditation status. Accredited levee systems and PALs are shown on the FIRM using the symbology shown in Figure 3. If the required information for a PAL is not submitted within the required timeframe, or if information indicates that a levee system no longer meets 44 CFR 65.10, FEMA will consider the levee system as non-accredited and issue an effective FIRM showing the levee-impacted area as a SFHA or Zone D. FEMA coordinated with the USACE, the local communities, and other organizations to compile a list of levee systems that exist within Fairbanks North Star Borough. Table 8, “Levee Systems,” lists all accredited levee systems, PALs, and non-accredited levee systems shown on the FIRM for this FIS Report. Other categories of levees may also be included in the table. The Levee ID shown in this table may not match numbers based on other identification systems that were listed in previous FIS Reports. Levee systems identified in the table are displayed on the FIRM with notes to users to indicate their flood hazard mapping status. Please note that the information presented in Table 8 is subject to change at any time. For that reason, the latest information regarding the levee systems presented in the table may be obtained by accessing the National Levee Database. For additional information, contact the levee owner/sponsor or the local community shown in Table 30. 37 Page 865 of 1055 Table 8: Levee Systems NLD Levee Levee System Flooding NLD Levee System Status on Levee Owner(s) Community Source(s) System ID Name Effective FIRM FIRM Panel(s) / Sponsor(s) Northern 02090C6405K, Fairbanks North Tanana Rail 100005000035 Non-Accredited 02090C6415K, NP Star Borough River Extension 02090C6420K Levee Fairbanks North Tanana 100005000035 NPS Road Non-Accredited 02090C6420K NP Star Borough River 02090C5405L, 02090C5410L, 02090C4342K, 02090C4361K, 02090C4362K, Tanana 02090C4366K, Fairbanks North River 02090C4367K, USACE - Alaska Star Borough; Levee - Tanana 02090C4386K, District, City of 2105000001 Federal, Accredited River 02090C4387K, Fairbanks North Fairbanks; City Tanana 02090C4391K, Star Borough of North Pole River 02090C4395K, Levee 02090C4415K, 02090C4420K, 02090C4440K, 02090C4445L, 02090C5385K Moose Fairbanks North Tanana Creek 02090C5430K, 2105000006 Non-Accredited USACE Star Borough River Acres 02090C5435K Berm 38 Page 866 of 1055 SECTION 5.0 – ENGINEERING METHODS For the flooding sources in the community, standard hydrologic and hydraulic study methods were used to determine the flood hazard data required for this study. Flood events of a magnitude that are expected to be equaled or exceeded at least once on the average during any 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, or 500-year period (recurrence interval) have been selected as having special significance for floodplain management. These events, commonly termed the 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year f loods, have a 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent-annual-chance, respectively, of being equaled or exceeded during any year. Although the recurrence interval represents the long-term, average period between floods of a specific magnitude, rare floods could occur at short intervals or even within the same year. The risk of experiencing a rare flood increases when periods greater than 1 year are considered. For example, the risk of having a flood that equals or exceeds the 100-year flood (1-percent chance of annual exceedance) during the term of a 30-year mortgage is approximately 26 percent (about 3 in 10); for any 90-year period, the risk increases to approximately 60 percent (6 in 10). The analyses reported herein reflect flooding potentials based on conditions existing in the community at the time of completion of this study. M aps and flood elevations will be amended periodically to reflect future changes. In addition to these flood events, the “1-percent-plus”, or “1%+”, annual chance flood elevation has been modeled and included on the flood profile for certain flooding sources in this FIS Report. While not used for regulatory or insurance purposes, this flood event has been calculated to help illustrate the variability range that exists between the regulatory 1-percent-annual-chance flood elevation and a 1-percent-annual-chance elevation that has taken into account an additional amount of uncertainty in the flood discharges (thus, the 1% “plus”). For flooding sources whose discharges were estimated using regression equations, the 1%+ flood elevations are derived by taking the 1-percent- annual-chance flood discharges and increasing the modeled discharges by a percentage equal to the average predictive error for the regression equation. For flooding sources with gage- or rainf all-runoff-based discharge estimates, the upper 84-percent confidence limit of the discharges is used to compute the 1%+ flood elevations. The engineering analyses described here incorporate the results of previously issued Letters of Map Change (LOMCs) listed in Table 26, “Incorporated Letters of Map Change”, which include Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs). For more information about LOMRs, refer to Section 6.5, “FIRM Revisions.” 5.1 Hydrologic Analyses Hydrologic analyses were carried out to establish the peak elevation-f requency relationships for floods of the selected recurrence intervals for each flooding source studied. Hydrologic analyses are typically performed at the watershed level. Depending on factors such as watershed size and shape, land use and urbanization, and natural or man-made storage, various models or methodologies may be applied. A summary of the hydrologic methods applied to develop the discharges used in the hydraulic analyses for each stream is provided in Table 12. Greater detail (including assumptions, analysis, and results) is available in the archived project documentation. 39 Page 867 of 1055 A summary of the discharges is provided in Table 9. Frequency Discharge-Drainage Area Curves used to develop the hydrologic models may also be shown in Figure 7 for selected flooding sources. A summary of stillwater elevations developed for non-coastal f looding sources is provided in Table 10. Stream gage information is provided in Table 11. 40 Page 868 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance At confluence with Saint Ace Creek 2.2 66 93 115 140 245 203 Patrick Creek Approximately 0.57 miles Ace Creek upstream of confluence 1.9 57 81 101 123 215 179 with Saint Patrick Creek Approximately 1.39 miles Ace Creek upstream of confluence 0.8 31 44 55 68 119 100 with Saint Patrick Creek Approximately 1.45 miles Alder Creek upstream of Parks 8.5 203 278 338 403 704 566 Highway Approximately 2.36 miles Alder Creek upstream of Parks 5.9 154 212 259 310 542 439 Highway Approximately 3.28 miles Alder Creek upstream of Parks 5.1 139 192 235 282 493 399 Highway At confluence with Cripple Alder Creek 11.2 247 338 409 487 851 681 Creek Ballaine Lake At Farmers Loop Road 1.7 53 75 94 114 200 166 Inlet of Ballaine Lake, approximately 606 feet Ballaine Lake 1.4 44 62 78 95 166 139 upstream of Farmers Loop Road Approximately 1.9 miles Big Eldorado Creek upstream of confluence 9.6 222 304 369 440 769 616 with Goldstream Creek Approximately 2.95 miles Big Eldorado Creek upstream of confluence 8.2 199 274 333 397 694 558 with Goldstream Creek 41 Page 869 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance At the outlet of Caribou Caribou Lake 0.5 21 31 39 48 84 71 Lake At the outlet of Reindeer Caribou Lake 0.4 16 23 29 36 63 54 Lake Caribou Lake At the inlet of Paul Lake 0.2 8 12 15 19 34 29 Chatanika River At Borough Boundary 769.5 7,560 9,410 10,800 12,200 21,300 15,600 At confluence with Shovel Chatanika River 727.1 7,260 9,050 10,400 11,800 20,600 15,000 Creek At confluence with Murphy Chatanika River 646.9 6,700 8,370 9,620 10,900 19,000 13,900 Creek Approximately 7 miles Chatanika River downstream of Pipeline 592.1 6,360 7,940 9,130 10,400 18,100 13,200 Access Road Chatanika River At Elliot Highway 527.1 5,920 7,410 8,520 9,670 16,900 12,400 Near Confluence with Chatanika River 480.1 5,570 6,980 8,040 9,120 15,900 11,700 Cleary Creek At Confluence with Poker Chatanika River 436.4 5,230 6,560 7,550 8,580 14,900 11,000 Creek Approximately 0.5 miles Chatanika River downstream of Steese 408 5,010 6,290 7,250 8,240 14,400 10,600 Highway Chatanika River At Steese Highway 364.7 4,640 5,830 6,730 7,660 13,300 9,870 Approximately 1.4 miles Chatanika River upstream of Steese 353.8 4,540 5,710 6,600 7,510 13,100 9,680 Highway Approximately 5.5 miles Chatanika River upstream of Steese 324.4 4,270 5,380 6,210 7,080 12,300 9,140 Highway 42 Page 870 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance At confluence with Camp Chatanika River 287.6 3,920 4,950 5,730 6,530 11,400 8,450 Creek At confluence with Batty Chatanika River 270.1 3,750 4,740 5,490 6,260 10,900 8,110 Creek Approximately 2.5 miles Chatanika River 233 3,370 4,270 4,950 5,650 9,840 7,340 upstream of Flat Creek Chena River At the River Gage in 1,980 12,0001 * 12,0001 12,0001 * 17,5002 (Detailed) Fairbanks At Chena Lakes Access Chena River 1,439 18,400 23,000 26,600 30,034 43,700 38,600 Road (Moose Creek Dam) Approximately 3.02 miles Chena River upstream of confluence 1,384 17,800 22,400 25,800 29,186 42,500 37,600 with Mullen Slough At confluence with Hunts Chena River 1,309 17,100 21,400 24,800 28,100 40,900 36,100 Creek Near confluence with Chena River 1,023 15,900 19,900 23,000 26,100 38,100 33,600 Hodging Slough At Chena Hot Springs Chena River Road USGS Gage 933.6 14,800 18,600 21,500 24,500 29,600 31,500 15493000 At confluence with Middle Chena River 346.2 4,490 5,650 6,520 7,420 12,900 9,570 Fork Chena River At Chena Hot Springs Chena River Road Bridge, upstream of 345.3 4,480 5,640 6,510 7,410 12,900 9,560 Middle Fork Chena River 1Regulated Peak 2 Little Chena River Peak plus 3,000 cfs for seepage and other conditions from Moose Creek Dam 43 Page 871 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance At Chena Hot Springs Chena River 328.5 4,360 5,480 6,330 7,210 12,600 9,300 Road Bridge At confluence with Angel Chena River 290 3,940 4,970 5,750 6,550 11,400 8,480 Creek Approximately 1.9 miles Chena River upstream of Chena Hot 286.4 3,900 4,930 5,700 6,500 11,300 8,410 Springs Road Bridge At confluence with North Chena River 156.2 2,410 3,080 3,600 4,130 7,200 5,410 Fork Chena River At confluence with West Chena River 156 2,410 3,090 3,600 4,130 7,200 5,410 Fork Chena River At confluence with Chena Chena Slough 23.6 186 256 334 436 * 817 River Chena Slough At Peede Road 21.4 174 240 311 405 * 750 Approximately 4,600 feet Chena Slough downstream of Clydesdale 18.9 161 221 286 369 * 677 Drive Approximately 1,100 feet Chena Slough 12.9 142 189 239 303 * 535 upstream of Repp Road Approximately 1,400 feet Chena Slough 6.9 98 124 153 190 * 328 upstream of Repp Road Chena Slough At Hurst Road 5.8 77 98 122 153 * 267 Approximately 250 feet Chena Slough 3.1 59 73 89 109 * 186 upstream of Hurst Road Approximately 1,600 feet Chena Slough upstream of Outside Hurst 2.8 48 61 74 91 * 158 Boulevard 44 Page 872 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 500 feet Chena Slough downstream of Spruce 1.3 34 40 47 56 * 91 Branch Drive At Mistletoe Drive & Chena Slough 0.9 22 26 30 36 * 58 Richardson Highway Chena Slough At Laurance Road 0.7 12 14 17 21 * 36 Confluence with Chena Clear Creek 2.7 58 98 139 190 344 376 River Approximately 0.57 miles Clear Creek upstream from Old Badger 2.2 24 43 62 87 174 178 Road Confluence with Unnamed Columbia Creek Tributary Columbia Creek 12.5 94 223 401 656 1,680 1,730 1 Upstream face of Prester Columbia Creek 12.5 133 296 507 810 1,960 2,060 John Drive Approximately 2.85 miles Columbia Creek downstream of confluence 10.2 224 307 373 444 776 623 with Wigwam Creek Approximately 727 feet Columbia Creek downstream of confluence 8.6 198 272 332 396 692 557 with Wigwam Creek At confluence with Columbia Creek 3.4 99 138 170 205 359 293 Wigwam Creek At Chena Hot Springs Columbia Creek 2.9 88 123 151 183 320 262 Road Approximately 0.38 miles Columbia Creek upstream of Chena Hot 2.5 78 109 135 163 285 235 Springs Road 45 Page 873 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 405 feet Cripple Creek downstream of Chena 40.6 339 757 1,340 2,010 5,590 5,220 Pump Road Confluence with Happy Cripple Creek 39.6 330 732 1,300 1,951 5,420 5,080 Creek Confluence with Unnamed Cripple Creek 27 213 426 681 1,038 3,150 2,980 Tributary Cripple Creek 1 At confluence with Alder Cripple Creek 2.8 81 113 140 169 296 244 Creek Approximately 1.35 miles Cripple Creek upstream of confluence 1.4 48 69 86 105 184 153 with Alder Creek Confluence with Chena Deadman Slough 1.9 46 84 121 167 347 320 River Confluence with Moose French Creek 97.5 1,120 2,330 3,700 5,236 12,300 12,600 Creek Approximately 2.44 miles French Creek downstream of confluence 37 666 884 1,060 1,240 2,160 1,680 with Unnamed Tributary French Creek_1 At confluence with French Creek Unnamed Tributary 19.6 423 568 682 804 1,400 1,110 French Creek 1 French Creek At Pipeline Access Road 17 385 518 622 734 1,280 1,010 Approximately 4.16 miles French Creek upstream of Pipeline 15.2 359 483 581 687 1,200 947 Access Road 46 Page 874 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 5.88 miles French Creek upstream of Pipeline 13.5 331 447 538 636 1,110 879 Access Road Approximately 7.19 miles French Creek upstream of Pipeline 10.9 284 385 465 551 962 764 Access Road Confluence with Moose Garrison Slough 8.5 133 238 347 484 949 987 Creek Approximately 1.17 miles Goldstream Creek downstream of confluence 113.1 1,560 2,030 2,390 2,760 4,810 3,680 with Moose Creek Approximately 0.47 miles Goldstream Creek upstream of confluence 98.4 1,410 1,830 2,160 2,510 4,380 3,350 with Moose Creek Approximately 1.40 miles Goldstream Creek downstream of confluence 94.2 1,370 1,780 2,100 2,440 4,250 3,260 with O'Connor Creek Goldstream Creek At Ballaine Road 76 1,170 1,530 1,810 2,110 3,680 2,830 Approximately 1.76 miles Goldstream Creek 60.4 1,000 1,310 1,560 1,810 3,160 2,440 upstream of Ballaine Road Approximately 4.17 miles Goldstream Creek 56.6 958 1,260 1,490 1,740 3,030 2,340 upstream of Ballaine Road At confluence with Cripple Happy Creek 9.8 207 285 347 414 723 583 Creek Happy Creek At Sheep Creek Road 9.4 201 277 338 403 704 567 Approximately 0.55 miles Happy Creek downstream of confluence 7.9 176 244 297 356 622 502 with Saint Patrick Creek 47 Page 875 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance At confluence with Saint Happy Creek 7.1 163 225 275 330 577 467 Patrick Creek At confluence with Saint Happy Creek 2.9 82 115 143 172 301 248 Patrick Creek Approximately 0.63 miles Happy Creek downstream of Saxon 2.5 73 103 127 154 270 223 Avenue Approximately 856 feet Happy Creek 1.6 52 74 92 112 196 163 upstream of Viking Court Approximately 2.42 miles Hopper Creek downstream of Chena Hot 3.7 107 150 184 221 386 315 Springs Road Approximately 1.16 miles Hopper Creek downstream of Chena Hot 3.4 102 142 175 210 367 300 Springs Road Approximately 0.56 miles Hopper Creek downstream of Chena Hot 2.5 81 114 141 170 297 244 Springs Road At Chena Hot Springs Hopper Creek 2.3 76 107 132 159 278 229 Road At confluence with Little Iowa Creek 13.5 311 422 509 603 1,050 836 Chena River Approximately 2.60 miles Iowa Creek upstream of confluence 12.9 301 408 492 583 1,020 809 with Little Chena River Approximately 3.53 miles Iowa Creek upstream of confluence 8 211 289 350 417 728 584 with Little Chena River 48 Page 876 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 4.24 miles Iowa Creek upstream of confluence 7.2 196 268 326 388 678 545 with Little Chena River Confluence with Noyes Isabella Creek 8.8 125 289 485 768 1,790 1,780 Slough At the River Gage at Little Chena River 372 4,100 * 7,200 8,900 * 14,500 Chena Hot Springs Bridge At confluence with Iowa Little Chena River 329.8 4,100 5,180 6,000 6,840 11,900 8,850 Creek Approximately 5.39 miles Little Chena River upstream of confluence 326 4,070 5,150 5,950 6,790 11,800 8,790 with Iowa Creek At the outlet of Reindeer Little Lake 1 38 54 68 83 145 121 Lake Approximately 2 miles Little Salcha River downstream of Richardson 69.5 1,130 1,470 1,740 2,030 3,540 2,720 Highway Little Salcha River At Richardson Highway 68.6 1,120 1,460 1,730 2,010 3,500 2,700 Approximately 1.35 miles downstream of confluence Little Salcha River 59.3 1,020 1,330 1,580 1,840 3,210 2,470 with Unnamed Tributary Little Salcha River_2 At confluence with Little Salcha River Unnamed Tributary Little 53.9 954 1,250 1,490 1,730 3,020 2,330 Salcha River_2 Approximately 1.32 miles Little Salcha River upstream of Pipeline 49.7 904 1,190 1,410 1,640 2,860 2,210 Access Road 49 Page 877 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 2.94 miles Little Salcha River upstream of Pipeline 43.4 825 1,090 1,290 1,510 2,630 2,030 Access Road At confluence with North Monument Creek 32.1 747 983 1,170 1,360 2,370 1,840 Fork Chena River Approximately 630 feet Monument Creek upstream of Richardson 26.7 668 881 1,050 1,220 2,130 1,650 Hwy #1 Approximately 1.3 miles Monument Creek upstream of Chena Hot 24.4 634 837 994 1,160 2,020 1,570 Springs Resort Approximately 804 feet Moose Creek downstream of Pipeline 155.2 1,650 3,290 5,280 7,611 17,200 18,300 Access Road Approximately 30 feet Moose Creek upstream of confluence 154.9 1,540 3,150 5,070 7,599 16,700 17,700 with Garrison Slough Confluence with French Moose Creek 144.3 1,510 3,090 4,980 7,193 16,500 17,500 Creek Confluence with Unnamed Moose Creek 46.4 498 1,080 1,800 2,538 6,540 6,700 Tributary Moose Creek 1 Moose Creek Downstream end of reach 44.3 778 1,030 1,220 1,430 2,490 1,940 Approximately 8.44 miles Moose Creek upstream of downstream 37.5 700 928 1,110 1,290 2,250 1,760 end of reach Approximately 11.76 miles Moose Creek upstream of downstream 33 642 852 1,020 1,190 2,080 1,620 end of reach 50 Page 878 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 1.17 miles Moose Creek downstream of upstream 30.7 611 812 969 1,140 1,990 1,550 end of reach Approximately 0.66 miles Moose Creek downstream of upstream 28 570 759 907 1,060 1,850 1,450 end of reach Approximately 14.08 miles Moose Creek upstream of downstream 24 512 683 817 961 1,680 1,310 end of reach At confluence with Moose Creek 11.1 249 340 412 491 858 685 Goldstream Creek Approximately 0.14 miles Moose Creek upstream of Moose 9.6 224 307 372 444 776 621 Mountain Road At confluence with Chena Mullen Slough 20.1 421 566 679 801 1,400 1,100 River Approximately 1.73 miles Mullen Slough upstream of confluence 19.8 417 560 673 794 1,390 1,090 with Chena River Approximately 3.19 miles Mullen Slough upstream of confluence 0.5 24 35 44 54 95 80 with Chena River North Fork Chena At confluence with Chena 95.3 1,680 2,170 2,540 2,930 5,110 3,870 River River North Fork Chena At confluence with 87.3 1,590 2,050 2,410 2,780 4,840 3,680 River Monument Creek Approximately 2.5 miles North Fork Chena upstream of confluence 81.2 1,520 1,960 2,300 2,660 4,630 3,520 River with Monument Creek 51 Page 879 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance At the confluence with O'Connor Creek 13.1 288 391 473 561 980 780 Goldstream Creek Approximately 0.43 miles O'Connor Creek upstream of Goldstream 10.5 246 335 406 483 843 675 Road Pond at downstream end Pearl Creek 4.8 36 85 149 211 646 631 of Pearl Creek At confluence with Chena Potlatch Creek 16.1 325 442 533 632 1,100 877 River At confluence with Potlatch Creek Unnamed Tributary 13.5 292 397 480 570 995 792 Potlatch Creek Approximately 2.71 miles upstream of confluence Potlatch Creek 10.8 251 343 415 494 863 689 with Unnamed Tributary Potlatch Creek Approximately 5.66 miles upstream of confluence Potlatch Creek 8.8 217 297 361 430 751 602 with Unnamed Tributary Potlatch Creek Approximately 7.60 miles upstream of confluence Potlatch Creek 7.4 192 263 320 382 667 536 with Unnamed Tributary Potlatch Creek Approximately 8.89 miles upstream of confluence Potlatch Creek 5.4 152 209 255 306 535 432 with Unnamed Tributary Potlatch Creek At confluence with Happy Saint Patrick Creek 4.2 108 151 185 223 390 319 Creek 52 Page 880 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance At confluence with Ace Saint Patrick Creek 1.9 59 84 105 127 222 184 Creek Approximately 0.80 miles Saint Patrick Creek upstream of confluence 1.7 54 77 96 117 205 170 with Ace Creek Approximately 1.68 miles Saint Patrick Creek upstream of confluence 1.1 39 56 71 86 151 126 with Ace Creek Approximately 2.40 miles Salcha River downstream of Richardson 2,220 32,900 42,100 49,500 57,184 78,700 76,600 Highway Approximately 9.15 miles Salcha River upstream of Richardson 2,170 32,300 41,400 48,600 56,238 77,400 75,400 Highway Approximately 3.8 miles Salcha River 2,070 31,100 40,000 47,000 54,300 74,900 72,900 upstream of Pipeline/Trail Approximately 10 miles Salcha River 1,925 29,400 37,800 44,500 51,500 71,200 69,200 upstream of Pipeline/Trail Approximately 16 miles Salcha River 1,844 28,500 36,600 43,100 49,900 69,000 67,100 upstream of Pipeline/Trail Approximately 22 miles Salcha River 1,709 26,800 34,600 40,700 47,200 65,400 63,600 upstream of Pipeline/Trail At confluence with Deep Salcha River 1,633 25,900 33,400 39,400 45,700 63,400 61,600 Creek Salcha River Near stream confluence 1,574 25,200 32,500 38,300 44,400 61,800 60,000 Salcha River Upstream limit of study 1,482 24,000 31,100 36,600 42,500 59,200 57,500 At confluence with Little Smallwood Creek 28 550 733 877 1,030 1,800 1,410 Chena River 53 Page 881 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance At confluence with Smallwood Creek Unnamed Tributary 25.2 510 682 816 960 1,680 1,310 Smallwood Creek Approximately 1.28 miles upstream of confluence Smallwood Creek 22 461 618 741 872 1,520 1,200 with Unnamed Tributary Smallwood Creek Approximately 3.64 miles Smallwood Creek upstream of confluence 18.5 407 547 657 775 1,350 1,070 with Unnamed Tributary Smallwood Creek Approximately 4.88 miles upstream of confluence Smallwood Creek 15 350 472 569 672 1,170 928 with Unnamed Tributary Smallwood Creek Approximately 5.66 miles upstream of confluence Smallwood Creek 11.8 294 398 481 570 995 790 with Unnamed Tributary Smallwood Creek Outlet of Smith Lake at Smith Lake 1.2 39 55 69 85 149 124 Seismic Road Approximately 1.58 miles Steele Creek downstream of Pipeline 14.6 310 420 508 602 1,050 836 Access Road Steele Creek At Pipeline Access Road 12.7 282 383 464 550 960 766 At Chena Hot Springs Steele Creek 11.2 257 351 425 504 880 704 Road Approximately 0.89 miles Steele Creek upstream of Chena Hot 9.2 222 304 369 439 767 615 Springs Road 54 Page 882 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 1.19 miles Steele Creek upstream of Chena Hot 8.5 212 290 352 419 732 588 Springs Road Tanana River At Fairbanks 6,102 93,310 106,550 117,120 128,310 149,520 157,130 Tanana River - Chena River Above Moose Creek Dam 1,460 10,190 14,420 17,520 20,560 28,170 27,480 Overf low Approximately 667 feet Unnamed Ditch_1 downstream of South 0.4 16 27 38 51 101 94 University Avenue Approximately 1,754 feet Unnamed Ditch_2 downstream of Swenson 0 0 1 1 2 8 6 Avenue Approximately 1,103 feet Unnamed Ditch_3 downstream of Erickson 0.1 0 1 2 4 17 12 Avenue At the upstream of Private Unnamed Lake_1 0.7 25 36 45 56 98 83 Road Approximately 0.56 miles Unnamed Lake_1 0.2 10 14 18 23 40 35 upstream of Private Road At the outlet of Unnamed Unnamed Lake_2 0.5 20 29 37 46 80 68 Lake_2 At the outlet of Unnamed Unnamed Lake_3 1.9 62 88 109 133 233 192 Lake_3 At the inlet of Unnamed Unnamed Lake_3 0 2 4 5 6 11 10 Lake_3 Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with 20.8 412 555 667 788 1,380 1,090 Chena River_1 Chena River 55 Page 883 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 3.42 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 19 388 523 629 744 1,300 1,030 Chena River_1 with Chena River At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Chena 10.4 249 340 412 489 854 682 Chena River_1 River_1_1 Approximately 8.65 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 8.2 212 290 352 419 732 586 Chena River_1 with Chena River At the confluence with Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary Chena 8.6 203 279 339 405 708 568 Chena River_1_1 River_1 Approximately 4.81 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 3.6 109 151 186 223 390 318 Chena River_1_1 with Unnamed Tributary Chena River_1 Unnamed Tributary At Laurance Road 13.5 251 345 419 499 872 699 Chena River_2 Approximately 1.05 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of Laurance 8.1 173 239 292 350 612 494 Chena River_2 Road Approximately 2.99 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 5.6 133 184 226 272 476 387 Chena River_2 with Unnamed Tributary Chena River_2_2 Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Unnamed 4.9 39 75 115 169 394 373 Chena River_2_1 Tributary Chena River 2 Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Unnamed 0.1 7 10 13 17 29 25 Chena River 2_2 Tributary Chena River 2 56 Page 884 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 0.37 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 0.1 5 7 9 12 21 18 Chena River_2_2 with Unnamed Tributary Chena River 2 Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Chena 17.1 297 406 492 585 1,020 817 Chena River_3 River Approximately 0.71 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 17 296 405 491 583 1,020 814 Chena River_3 with Chena River Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with 8.5 188 259 316 378 661 533 Chena River_4 Chena River Approximately 1.18 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of the 7.2 166 229 280 335 586 474 Chena River_4 confluence with Chena River Approximately 1.64 miles Unnamed Tributary downstream of D & M 6.5 154 213 260 312 545 442 Chena River_4 Road Approximately 1.08 miles Unnamed Tributary downstream of D & M 1.5 50 71 88 107 187 156 Chena River_4 Road Approximately 1.01 miles Unnamed Tributary downstream of D & M 0.6 25 37 46 57 99 84 Chena River_4 Road Approximately 0.56 miles Unnamed Tributary downstream of D & M 0.3 15 22 28 35 61 52 Chena River_4 Road Approximately 801 feet Unnamed Tributary downstream of Yukeen 14.5 76 149 230 315 862 725 Chena River_5 Drive 57 Page 885 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 1,243 feet Unnamed Tributary downstream of Pipeline 10.6 58 111 167 234 586 507 Chena River_5 Access Road Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Unnamed 1.7 9 19 30 47 201 114 Chena River_5_1 Tributary Chena River 5 Approximately 238 feet downstream of confluence Unnamed Tributary with Unnamed Tributary 6.2 32 62 94 130 337 288 Chena River_5_3 Chena River 5_4 and Unnamed Tributary Chena River 5_3 Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Chena 0.5 15 26 38 52 100 100 Chena River_6 River Confluence with Chena Unnamed Tributary River, 470 feet 0.3 16 27 36 48 86 85 Chena River_7 downstream of Hamilton Avenue Approximately 521 feet Unnamed Tributary downstream of Brock 6.2 34 67 102 144 381 315 Chena Slough_1 Road Unnamed Tributary Approximately 382 feet 5.1 31 60 90 125 319 271 Chena Slough_1 upstream of Repp Road Approximately 392 feet Unnamed Tributary downstream of Timberpark 1.5 14 27 43 62 137 138 Chena Slough_1_2 loop Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Columbia 2.2 39 77 120 177 378 390 Columbia Creek_1 Creek Unnamed Tributary At confluence with Cripple 11 241 330 400 476 831 666 Cripple Creek_1 Creek 58 Page 886 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 1.15 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 10.1 228 312 379 451 788 632 Cripple Creek_1 with Cripple Creek Unnamed Tributary At confluence with French 16.7 343 464 560 662 1,160 918 French Creek_1 Creek Approximately 1.39 miles Unnamed Tributary downstream of confluence 14.9 316 429 518 613 1,070 851 French Creek_1 with Unnamed Tributary French Creek_1_1 At confluence with Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary 14.2 305 413 499 592 1,030 823 French Creek_1 French Creek_1_1 At confluence with Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary 9.8 227 310 377 449 784 628 French Creek_1 French Creek_1_2 Approximately 1.28 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of Pipeline 7.6 188 259 315 376 657 529 French Creek_1 Access Road At confluence with Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary 0.9 33 48 60 74 129 108 French Creek_1_1 French Creek_1 Approximately 0.69 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 0.6 26 37 47 57 100 85 French Creek_1_1 with Unnamed Tributary French Creek_1 At confluence with Unnamed Tributary Unnamed Tributary 3.5 108 150 184 221 386 315 French Creek_1_2 French Creek_1 59 Page 887 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 1.22 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 2.4 83 116 143 173 303 248 French Creek_1_2 with Unnamed Tributary French Creek_1 Approximately 800 feet Unnamed Tributary downstream of Pipeline 24.2 486 651 781 919 1,600 1,260 French Creek_2 Access Road Approximately 2.87 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of Pipeline 19.7 423 569 683 805 1,410 1,110 French Creek_2 Access Road Approximately 4.64 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of Pipeline 18.8 411 553 664 783 1,370 1,080 French Creek_2 Access Road Approximately 6.50 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of Pipeline 15.5 359 484 582 687 1,200 949 French Creek_2 Access Road Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with 2.7 79 111 137 166 291 239 French Creek_3 French Creek Approximately 0.42 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 2.7 78 110 136 165 289 238 French Creek_3 with French Creek Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with 7.8 188 258 315 376 657 529 French Creek_4 French Creek Approximately 0.83 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 7.4 181 250 304 363 634 512 French Creek_4 with French Creek Approximately 0.88 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 5.9 156 215 262 314 549 444 French Creek_4 with French Creek 60 Page 888 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 2.82 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 5.1 141 195 238 285 498 404 French Creek_4 with French Creek Approximately 3.21 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 4.4 127 176 215 258 451 367 French Creek_4 with French Creek Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Garrison 1 20 40 61 87 182 188 Garrison Slough_1 Slough Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with 0.7 28 40 50 62 108 92 Goldstream Creek_1 Goldstream Creek Approximately 1,240 feet Unnamed Tributary upstream of Harper's 0.5 21 31 39 48 84 71 Goldstream Creek_1 Road Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with 0.4 17 25 31 39 68 58 Little Chena River_1 Little Chena River Approximately 500 feet Unnamed Tributary upstream of the 0.4 16 24 30 37 65 56 Little Chena River_1 confluence with Little Chena River Approximately 500 feet Unnamed Tributary upstream of Chief Nickoli 0.3 15 22 28 34 60 51 Little Chena River_1 Loop Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with 11 249 340 412 490 856 685 Little Chena River_2 Little Chena River Approximately 0.86 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of the 10 233 318 386 460 803 643 Little Chena River_2 confluence with Little Chena River 61 Page 889 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Approximately 2.69 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of the 8.6 208 285 346 413 721 579 Little Chena River_2 confluence with Little Chena River Approximately 3.76 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of the 7.2 183 252 307 366 639 516 Little Chena River_2 confluence with Little Chena River Approximately 6.35 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of the 6 160 221 269 322 563 455 Little Chena River_2 confluence with Little Chena River Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with 0.1 6 9 12 15 26 23 Little Chena River_2 Little Chena River Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with 2.2 67 95 118 143 250 207 Little Salcha River_1 Little Salcha River Approximately 1.07 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of the 1.3 47 67 83 102 179 148 Little Salcha River_1 confluence with Little Salcha River Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with 1.8 61 86 106 129 226 187 Little Salcha River_2 Little Salcha River Approximately 0.38 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of the 1.2 44 63 78 95 167 139 Little Salcha River_2 confluence with Little Salcha River Approximately 108 feet Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 2.1 37 69 104 143 292 311 Moose Creek_1 with Moose Creek 62 Page 890 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Unnamed Tributary Approximately 174 feet 0.2 2 4 7 10 25 26 Moose Creek_2 upstream of Claude Street Unnamed Tributary At the confluence with 1.3 40 58 73 89 155 130 Potlatch Creek Potlatch Creek Approximately 0.32 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 1.1 37 53 66 81 142 119 Potlatch Creek with Potlatch Creek Approximately 1.56 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 0.9 32 46 58 71 125 105 Potlatch Creek with Potlatch Creek Approximately 2.65 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 0.3 14 21 27 33 58 50 Potlatch Creek with Potlatch Creek Approximately 3.04 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 0.2 8 12 15 19 34 29 Potlatch Creek with Potlatch Creek Unnamed Tributary Confluence with 1.2 47 67 83 101 177 148 Smallwood Creek Smallwood Creek Approximately 0.86 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 0.3 17 24 31 38 67 57 Smallwood Creek with Smallwood Creek Approximately 1.22 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 0.2 11 17 21 26 46 39 Smallwood Creek with Smallwood Creek Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Wigman 1.3 44 63 79 96 169 141 Wigwam Creek Creek Approximately 0.61 miles Unnamed Tributary upstream of confluence 1 37 54 67 82 143 120 Wigwam Creek with Wigman Creek 63 Page 891 of 1055 Table 9: Summary of Discharges (Continued) Peak Discharge (cfs) 1% 4% 2% Annual 1% Annual Drainage Area 10% Annual Annual Annual Chance Chance 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location (Square Miles) Chance Chance Chance Existing Future Chance Confluence with Columbia Wigwam Creek 5.1 131 182 223 268 469 381 Creek Confluence with Unnamed Wigwam Creek 3.8 102 143 176 212 371 304 Tributary Wigman Creek Approximately 1.02 miles Wigwam Creek upstream of confluence 3 86 121 149 180 315 259 with Columbia Creek Approximately 1.85 miles Wigwam Creek upstream of confluence 1.5 49 70 87 106 186 154 with Columbia Creek *Not calculated for this Flood Risk Project Figure 7: Frequency Discharge-Drainage Area Curves [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] Table 10: Summary of Non-Coastal Stillwater Elevations Elevations (feet NAVD88) 10% Annual 4% Annual 2% Annual 1% Annual 0.2% Annual Flooding Source Location Chance Chance Chance Chance Chance At outlet located in Harding Lake northwest corner of * * * 718 * lake boundary *Not calculated for this Flood Risk Project 64 Page 892 of 1055 Table 11: Stream Gage Information used to Determine Discharges Agency Drainage Period of Record that Area Flooding Gage Maintains (Square Source Identifier Gage Site Name Miles) From To Chena River Chena Below Hunts 15493400 USGS 1,340 9/30/1993 3/21/2021 River Creek Near Two Rivers Alaska Chena River Near Chena USGS 15493000 Two Rivers 934 8/12/1967 5/12/2020 River Alaska Chena USGS Chena River at 15514000 1,990 10/1/1989 10/28/2021 River Fairbanks USGS Salcha River Salcha 15484000 Near Salchaket 2,200 9/30/2014 10/30/2020 River Alaska Tanana USGS Tanana River at 15485500 6,102 6/13/1962 6/24/2020 River Fairbanks Tanana USGS Tanana River at 15515500 25,560 10/1/1989 10/28/2021 River Nenana 5.2 Hydraulic Analyses Analyses of the hydraulic characteristics of flooding from the sources studied were carried out to provide estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals. Base flood elevations on the FIRM represent the elevations shown on the Flood Profiles and in the Floodway Data tables in the FIS Report. Rounded whole-foot elevations may be shown on the FIRM in coastal areas, areas of ponding, and other areas with static base flood elevations. These whole-foot elevations may not exactly reflect the elevations derived from the hydraulic analyses. For construction and/or floodplain management purposes, users are cautioned to use the flood elevation data presented in this FIS Report in conjunction with the data shown on the FIRM. The hydraulic analyses for this FIS were based on unobstructed flow. The flood elevations shown on the profiles are thus considered valid only if hydraulic structures remain unobstructed, operate properly, and do not fail. For streams for which hydraulic analyses were based on cross sections, locations of selected cross sections are shown on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1). For stream segments for which a floodway was computed (Section 6.3), selected cross sections are also listed in Table 23, “Floodway Data.” A summary of the methods used in hydraulic analyses performed for this project is provided in Table 12. Roughness coefficients are provided in Table 13. Roughness coefficients are values representing the frictional resistance water experiences when passing overland or through a channel. They are used in the calculations to determine water surface elevations. Greater detail (including assumptions, analysis, and results) is available in the archived project documentation. 65 Page 893 of 1055 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses Hydrologic Hydraulic Date Flood Study Limits Study Limits Model or Model or Analyses Zone on Flooding Source Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Method Used Method Used Completed FIRM Special Considerations Approximately 1.39 Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Ace Creek 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Saint Patrick Creek confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Saint Patrick Creek Approximately 3.28 Confluence with Regression HEC-RAS Alder Creek miles upstream of 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Cripple Creek Equations 6.1.0 Parks Highway Inlet of Ballaine Lake, At Farmers Loop approximately 600 Regression HEC-RAS Ballaine Lake 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Road feet upstream of Equations 6.1.0 Farmers Loop Road Approximately 1.9 Approximately 2.95 Big Eldorado miles upstream of miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Creek confluence with confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Goldstream Creek Goldstream Creek At the outlet of At the inlet of Paul Regression HEC-RAS Caribou Lake 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Caribou Lake Lake Equations 6.1.0 Approximately Approximately 1.5 miles 21.2 miles Regression HEC-RAS Chatanika River downstream of 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State upstream of Equations 6.1.0 Murphy Dome Steese Highway Road Approximately 68 miles upstream of At Chena Lakes Chena Lakes Gage Analysis Access Road HEC-RAS Chena River Access Road – HEC SSP 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State (Moose Creek 6.1.0 (Moose Creek 2.1.1 Dam) Dam) at Chena Hot Springs Road Confluence with Chena River Moose Creek Dam Gage Analysis HEC-RAS 4.0 2008 AE South Fairbanks Local Drainage Study Tanana River 66 Page 894 of 1055 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses (Continued) Hydrologic Hydraulic Date Flood Study Limits Study Limits Model or Model or Analyses Zone on Flooding Source Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Method Used Method Used Completed FIRM Special Considerations Approximately 700 feet upstream of USACE HEC- Floodway analysis considers only rainfall Confluence with HEC-RAS Chena Slough Richardson HMS Version 7/31/2018 AE runoff elevations; groundwater base flood Chena River Version 5.0 Highway Bridge 4.1 elevations remain independent. (MP359) Approximately 100 Confluence with HEC-RAS Clear Creek feet upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Chena River 6.1.0 Bradway Road Approximately 2.85 Upstream face of miles downstream HEC-RAS Columbia Creek HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Prester John Drive of confluence with 6.1.0 Wigwam Creek Approximately 2.85 Approximately 0.38 miles downstream miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Columbia Creek 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State of confluence with Chena Hot Springs Equations 6.1.0 Wigwam Creek Road Approximately 400 Confluence with HEC-RAS Cripple Creek feet downstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Alder Creek 6.1.0 Chena Pump Road Approximately 1.35 Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Cripple Creek 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Alder Creek confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Alder Creek Deadman Confluence with At the University HEC-RAS HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Slough Chena River Avenue 6.1.0 Approximately 1.07 Confluence with HEC-RAS French Creek miles upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Moose Creek 6.1.0 Manchu Road Approximately 2.44 Approximately 7.19 miles downstream miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS French Creek of confluence with 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Pipeline Access Equations 6.1.0 Unnamed Tributary Road French Creek_1 Approximately 0.94 Confluence with HEC-RAS Garrison Slough miles upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Moose Creek 6.1.0 Central Avenue 67 Page 895 of 1055 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses (Continued) Hydrologic Hydraulic Date Flood Study Limits Study Limits Model or Model or Analyses Zone on Flooding Source Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Method Used Method Used Completed FIRM Special Considerations Approximately 1.17 Approximately 4.17 Goldstream miles downstream Regression HEC-RAS miles upstream of 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Creek of confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Ballaine Road Moose Creek Approximately 860 Confluence with Regression HEC-RAS Happy Creek feet upstream of 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Cripple Creek Equations 6.1.0 Viking Court Approximately 2.42 miles downstream At Chena Hot Regression HEC-RAS Hopper Creek 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State of Chena Hot Springs Road Equations 6.1.0 Springs Road Approximately 4.24 Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Iowa Creek 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Little Chena River confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Little Chena River Approximately 1.63 Confluence with miles upstream of HEC-RAS Isabella Creek HEC-HMS 4.7 12/31/2023 A 2D Unsteady-State Noyes Slough confluence with 6.1.0 Noyes Slough Approximately 5.39 Little Chena Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State River Iowa Creek confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Iowa Creek Approximately 2 Little Chena Confluence with miles upstream of Gage Analysis HEC-RAS 4.0 2008 AE South Fairbanks Local Drainage Study River Chena River Chena Hot Springs Road At the outlet of Regression HEC-RAS Little Lake At shoreline 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Little Lake Equations 6.1.0 Approximately 2.0 Approximately 2.94 Little Salcha miles downstream miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State River of Richardson Pipeline Access Equations 6.1.0 Highway Road 68 Page 896 of 1055 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses (Continued) Hydrologic Hydraulic Date Flood Study Limits Study Limits Model or Model or Analyses Zone on Flooding Source Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Method Used Method Used Completed FIRM Special Considerations Approximately 2 Confluence with Monument miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS North Fork Chena 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Creek Chena Hot Springs Equations 6.1.0 River Road Approximately 0.14 Moose Creek Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State (Goldstream) Goldstream Creek Moose Mountain Equations 6.1.0 Road Approximately 1.64 Approximately 6.71 miles upstream of miles upstream of HEC-RAS Moose Creek HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Richardson Richardson 6.1.0 Highway Highway Approximately Approximately 6.71 20.79 miles miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Moose Creek upstream of 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Richardson Equations 6.1.0 Richardson Highway Highway Approximately 3.19 Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Mullen Slough 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Chena River confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Chena River Approximately 3 North Fork Confluence with Regression HEC-RAS miles upstream 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Chena River Chena River of Chena Hot Equations 6.1.0 Springs Road Confluence with Confluence with Noyes Slough Gage Analysis HEC-RAS 4.0 2008 AE South Fairbanks Local Drainage Study Chena River Chena River Approximately 0.43 Confluence with Regression HEC-RAS O'Connor Creek miles upstream of 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Goldstream Creek Equations 6.1.0 Goldstream Road Pond at Approximately 0.5 HEC-RAS Pearl Creek downstream end of miles upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State 6.1.0 Pearl Creek Auburn Drive 69 Page 897 of 1055 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses (Continued) Hydrologic Hydraulic Date Flood Study Limits Study Limits Model or Model or Analyses Zone on Flooding Source Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Method Used Method Used Completed FIRM Special Considerations Approximately 8.89 miles upstream of Confluence with Regression HEC-RAS Potlatch Creek confluence with 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Chena River Equations 6.1.0 Unnamed Tributary Potlatch Creek Approximately 1.2 Richardson At Richardson HEC-SSP V2 & HEC-RAS Tanana River - 2D Unsteady-State Stream miles upstream of 9/30/2022 AE Overflow Highway Bulletin 17C V6.2 Line from LOMR 16-10-1346P Equinox Lane Approximately 1.68 Saint Patrick Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Creek Happy Creek confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Ace Creek Approximately 2.40 Approximately 59 Gage Analysis miles downstream miles upstream of HEC-RAS Salcha River – HEC SSP 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State of Richardson Richardson 6.1.0 2.1.1 Highway Highway Approximately 5.66 miles upstream of Smallwood Confluence with Regression HEC-RAS confluence with 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Creek Little Chena River Equations 6.1.0 Unnamed Tributary Smallwood Creek Inlet of Smith Lake, Outlet of Smith approximately 250 Regression HEC-RAS Smith Lake Lake at Seismic 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State feet upstream of Equations 6.1.0 Road Sheep Creek Road Approximately 1.58 Approximately 1.19 miles downstream miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Steele Creek 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State of Pipeline Access Chena Hot Springs Equations 6.1.0 Road Road Below Fairbanks, Near Salcha, HEC-SSP V2 & HEC-RAS AE with Tanana River 8/25/2022 2D Unsteady-State Alaska Alaska Bulletin 17C V6.2 Floodway Approximately 670 Unnamed feet downstream of HEC-RAS At Davis Road HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Ditch_1 South University 6.1.0 Avenue 70 Page 898 of 1055 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses (Continued) Hydrologic Hydraulic Date Flood Study Limits Study Limits Model or Model or Analyses Zone on Flooding Source Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Method Used Method Used Completed FIRM Special Considerations Approximately Approximately 230 1,600 feet Unnamed feet upstream of HEC-RAS upstream of Robert HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Ditch_2 Robert Mitchell 6.1.0 Mitchell Expressway Expressway Approximately Approximately 130 1,000 feet Unnamed feet upstream of HEC-RAS upstream of Robert HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Ditch_3 Robert Mitchell 6.1.0 Mitchell Expressway Expressway Approximately 0.56 Unnamed At the upstream of Regression HEC-RAS miles upstream of 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Lake_1 Private Road Equations 6.1.0 Private Road Unnamed At the outlet of At the inlet of Regression HEC-RAS 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Lake_3 Unnamed Lake_3 Unnamed Lake_3 Equations 6.1.0 Approximately 8.65 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary Chena 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Chena River confluence with Equations 6.1.0 River_1 Chena River Unnamed Confluence with Approximately 4.81 Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS River_1_1 Chena River_1 confluence with 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Equations 6.1.0 Unnamed Tributary Chena River_1 Approximately 2.99 Unnamed miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary Chena At Laurence Road confluence with 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Equations 6.1.0 River_2 Unnamed Tributary Chena River_2_2 Approximately 0.37 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary confluence with 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Equations 6.1.0 River_2_2 Chena River_2 Unnamed Tributary Chena River_2 71 Page 899 of 1055 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses (Continued) Hydrologic Hydraulic Date Flood Study Limits Study Limits Model or Model or Analyses Zone on Flooding Source Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Method Used Method Used Completed FIRM Special Considerations Approximately 0.71 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary Chena 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Chena River confluence with Equations 6.1.0 River_3 Chena River Unnamed Approximately 450 Confluence with Regression HEC-RAS Tributary Chena feet upstream of D 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Chena River Equations 6.1.0 River_4 & M Road Approximately 0.4 Unnamed Approximately 1.50 miles upstream of HEC-RAS Tributary Chena miles upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State confluence with 6.1.0 River_5 Peede Road Chena River Unnamed Confluence with Approximately 1.96 HEC-RAS Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary miles upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State 6.1.0 River_5_1 Chena River_5 Brock Road Unnamed Confluence with Approximately 250 HEC-RAS Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary feet upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State 6.1.0 River_5_1_1 Chena River_5_1 Willis Court Approximately 1.19 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of HEC-RAS Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Pipeline Access 6.1.0 River_5_2 Chena River_5 Road Unnamed Confluence with Approximately 0.84 HEC-RAS Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary miles upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State 6.1.0 River_5_3 Chena River_5 Repp Road Approximately 1.14 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of HEC-RAS Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary confluence with HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State 6.1.0 River_5_4 Chena River_5 Unnamed Tributary Chena River_5 Approximately 1.30 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of HEC-RAS Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary confluence with HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State 6.1.0 River_5_5 Chena River_5_3 Unnamed Tributary Chena River_5_3 72 Page 900 of 1055 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses (Continued) Hydrologic Hydraulic Date Flood Study Limits Study Limits Model or Model or Analyses Zone on Flooding Source Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Method Used Method Used Completed FIRM Special Considerations Unnamed Confluence with Approximately 1.10 HEC-RAS Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary miles upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State 6.1.0 River_5_6 Chena River_5_3 Repp Road Unnamed Approximately 650 Confluence with HEC-RAS Tributary Chena feet upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Chena River 6.1.0 River_6 Neely Road Unnamed Approximately 200 Confluence with HEC-RAS Tributary Chena feet upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Chena River 6.1.0 River_7 Steese Highway Approximately Unnamed Approximately 500 1,000 feet HEC-RAS Tributary Chena feet downstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State downstream of 6.1.0 Slough_1 Brock Road Laurance Road Unnamed Confluence with At Snowshoe HEC-RAS Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Avenue 6.1.0 Slough_1_1 Chena Slough_1 Approximately Unnamed Confluence with 2,500 feet HEC-RAS Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State upstream of Plack 6.1.0 Slough_1_1_1 Chena Slough_1_1 Road Unnamed Confluence with Approximately 175 HEC-RAS Tributary Chena Unnamed Tributary feet downstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State 6.1.0 Slough_1_2 Chena Slough_1 Deepwoods Drive Unnamed Tributary Confluence with At Homestead HEC-RAS HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Columbia Columbia Creek Road 6.1.0 Creek_1 Unnamed Approximately 400 Tributary Confluence with feet upstream of HEC-RAS HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Columbia Columbia Creek_1 Homestead Road 6.1.0 Creek_1_2 South Approximately 1.15 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary Cripple 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Cripple Creek confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Creek_1 Cripple Creek 73 Page 901 of 1055 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses (Continued) Hydrologic Hydraulic Date Flood Study Limits Study Limits Model or Model or Analyses Zone on Flooding Source Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Method Used Method Used Completed FIRM Special Considerations Approximately 1.28 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary French 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State French Creek Pipeline Access Equations 6.1.0 Creek_1 Road Approximately 0.69 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary French Unnamed Tributary confluence with 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Equations 6.1.0 Creek_1_1 French Creek_1 Unnamed Tributary French Creek_1 Approximately 1.22 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary French Unnamed Tributary confluence with 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Equations 6.1.0 Creek_1_2 French Creek_1 Unnamed Tributary French Creek_1 Approximately 800 Approximately 6.50 Unnamed feet downstream of miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary French 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Pipeline Access Pipeline Access Equations 6.1.0 Creek_2 Road Road Approximately 0.42 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary French 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State French Creek confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Creek_3 French Creek Approximately 3.21 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary French 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State French Creek confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Creek_4 French Creek Unnamed Approximately 1.06 Tributary Confluence with miles upstream of HEC-RAS HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State Garrison Garrison Slough confluence with 6.1.0 Slough_1 Garrison Slough Unnamed Tributary Confluence with Regression HEC-RAS Goldstream Road 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Goldstream Goldstream Creek Equations 6.1.0 Creek_1 74 Page 902 of 1055 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses (Continued) Hydrologic Hydraulic Date Flood Study Limits Study Limits Model or Model or Analyses Zone on Flooding Source Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Method Used Method Used Completed FIRM Special Considerations Unnamed Approximately 500 Confluence with Regression HEC-RAS Tributary Little feet upstream of 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Little Chena River Equations 6.1.0 Chena River_1 Chief Nickoli Loop Approximately 6.35 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary Little 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Little Chena River the confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Chena River_2 Little Chena River Approximately 1.07 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary Little 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Little Salcha River the confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Salcha River_1 Little Salcha River Approximately 0.38 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary Little 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Little Salcha River the confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Salcha River_2 Little Salcha River Approximately 100 Approximately 0.71 Unnamed feet upstream of miles upstream of HEC-RAS Tributary Moose HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State confluence with confluence with 6.1.0 Creek_1 Moose Creek Moose Creek Unnamed Approximately 175 Approximately 500 HEC-RAS Tributary Moose feet upstream of feet upstream of HEC-HMS 4.7 9/30/2022 A 2D Unsteady-State 6.1.0 Creek_2 Claude Street Mildred Avenue Approximately 3.94 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Potlatch Creek confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Potlatch Creek Potlatch Creek Unnamed Approximately 1.22 Tributary Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Smallwood Smallwood Creek confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Creek Smallwood Creek Approximately 0.61 Unnamed Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Tributary 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Wigwam Creek confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Wigwam Creek Wigwam Creek 75 Page 903 of 1055 Table 12: Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses (Continued) Hydrologic Hydraulic Date Flood Study Limits Study Limits Model or Model or Analyses Zone on Flooding Source Downstream Limit Upstream Limit Method Used Method Used Completed FIRM Special Considerations Approximately 1.85 Confluence with miles upstream of Regression HEC-RAS Wigwam Creek 9/30/2022 A 1D Steady-State Columbia Creek confluence with Equations 6.1.0 Columbia Creek 76 Page 904 of 1055 Table 13: Roughness Coefficients Flooding Source Channel “n” Overbank “n” Ace Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Alder Creek 0.035 0.070 - 0.100 Ballaine Lake 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Big Eldorado Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Caribou Lake 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Chatanika River 0.035 - 0.038 0.025 - 0.100 Chena River (Approximate) 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Chena River (Detailed) 0.027 - 0.031 0.060 Chena Slough 0.03 - 0.081 0.1 Clear Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Columbia Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Columbia Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Cripple Creek 0.035 0.070 - 0.100 Cripple Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Deadman Slough 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 French Creek 0.035 0.035 - 0.100 French Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Garrison Slough 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Goldstream Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Happy Creek 0.035 0.030 - 0.100 Hopper Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Iowa Creek 0.035 0.040 - 0.100 Isabella Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Little Chena River 0.035 0.070 - 0.100 Little Chena River (Detailed) 0.027 - 0.031 0.060 Little Lake 0.025 - 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Little Salcha River 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Monument Creek 0.035 0.030 - 0.100 Moose Creek 0.035 0.040 - 0.100 Moose Creek 0.035 0.030 - 0.100 Moose Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Mullen Slough 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 North Fork Chena River 0.035 0.030 - 0.100 Noyes Slough (Detailed) 0.027 - 0.031 0.060 O'Connor Creek 0.035 0.030 - 0.100 Pearl Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Potlatch Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Saint Patrick Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Salcha River 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Smallwood Creek 0.035 0.040 - 0.100 Smith Lake 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Steele Creek 0.035 0.030 - 0.100 77 Page 905 of 1055 Table 13: Roughness Coefficients (Continued) Flooding Source Channel “n” Overbank “n” Tanana River (Detailed) 0.025 0.02 - 0.1 Unnamed Ditch_1 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Unnamed Ditch_2 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Unnamed Ditch_3 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Unnamed Lake_1 0.025 - 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Unnamed Lake_3 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 River_1 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 River_1_1 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 River_2 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 River_2_1 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 River_2_2 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 River_3 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 River_4 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 River_5_1 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 River_5_1_1 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 River_5_2 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 River_5_3 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 River_5_4 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 River_5_5 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 River_5_6 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 River_6 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 River_7 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Slough_1 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Slough_1_1 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Slough_1_1_1 Unnamed Tributary Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Slough_1_2 78 Page 906 of 1055 Table 13: Roughness Coefficients (Continued) Flooding Source Channel “n” Overbank “n” Unnamed Tributary Columbia 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Creek_1 Unnamed Tributary Columbia 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Creek_1_2 Unnamed Tributary Cripple 0.035 0.100 Creek_1 Unnamed Tributary French 0.035 0.070 - 0.100 Creek_1 Unnamed Tributary French 0.035 0.100 Creek_1_1 Unnamed Tributary French 0.035 0.070 - 0.100 Creek_1_2 Unnamed Tributary French 0.035 0.070 - 0.100 Creek_2 Unnamed Tributary French 0.035 0.030 - 0.100 Creek_3 Unnamed Tributary French 0.035 0.100 Creek_4 Unnamed Tributary Garrison 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Slough_1 Unnamed Tributary Goldstream 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Creek_1 Unnamed Tributary Little Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 River_1 Unnamed Tributary Little Chena 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 River_2 Unnamed Tributary Little Salcha 0.035 0.035 - 0.100 River_1 Unnamed Tributary Little Salcha 0.035 0.100 River_2 Unnamed Tributary Moose 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Creek_1 Unnamed Tributary Moose 0.035 0.025 - 0.12 Creek_2 Unnamed Tributary Potlatch 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 Creek Unnamed Tributary Smallwood 0.035 0.100 Creek Unnamed Tributary Wigwam 0.035 0.030 - 0.100 Creek Wigwam Creek 0.035 0.025 - 0.100 79 Page 907 of 1055 5.3 Coastal Analyses This section is not applicable to this Flood Risk Project. Table 14: Summary of Coastal Analyses [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] 5.3.1 Total Stillwater Elevations This section is not applicable to this Flood Risk Project. Figure 8: 1% Annual Chance Total Stillwater Elevations for Coastal Areas [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] Table 15: Tide Gage Analysis Specifics [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] 5.3.2 Waves This section is not applicable to this Flood Risk Project. 5.3.3 Coastal Erosion This section is not applicable to this Flood Risk Project. 5.3.4 Wave Hazard Analyses This section is not applicable to this Flood Risk Project. Table 16: Coastal Transect Parameters [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] Figure 9: Transect Location Map [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] 5.4 Alluvial Fan Analyses Table 17: Summary of Alluvial Fan Analyses [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] Table 18: Results of Alluvial Fan Analyses [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] 80 Page 908 of 1055 SECTION 6.0 – MAPPING METHODS 6.1 Vertical and Horizontal Control All FIS Reports and FIRMs are referenced to a specific vertical datum. The vertical datum provides a starting point against which flood, ground, and structure elevations can be referenced and compared. Until recently, the standard vertical datum used for newly created or revised FIS Reports and FIRMs was the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). With the completion of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), many FIS Reports and FIRMs are now prepared using NAVD88 as the referenced vertical datum. Flood elevations shown in this FIS Report and on the FIRMs are referenced to NAVD88. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion between NGVD29 and NAVD88 or other datum conversion, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at www.ngs.noaa.gov. Temporary vertical monuments are often established during the preparation of a flood hazard analysis for the purpose of establishing local vertical control. Although these monuments are not shown on the FIRM, they may be found in the archived project documentation associated with the FIS Report and the FIRMs for this community. Interested individuals may contact FEMA to access these data. To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for benchmarks in the area, please visit the NGS website at www.ngs.noaa.gov. The datum conversion locations and values that were calculated for Fairbanks North Star Borough are provided in Table 19. Table 19: Countywide Vertical Datum Conversion Conversion from Quadrangle NGVD29 to Quadrangle Name Corner Latitude Longitude NAVD88 (feet) * * * * * Average Conversion from NGVD29 to NAVD88 = + 5.1 feet *Not provided in previous FIS A countywide conversion factor could not be generated for Fairbanks North Star Borough because the maximum variance from average exceeds 0.25 feet. Calculations for the vertical offsets on a stream by stream basis are depicted in Table 20. Table 20: Stream-Based Vertical Datum Conversion [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] 81 Page 909 of 1055 6.2 Base Map The FIRMs and FIS Report for this project have been produced in a digital format. The flood hazard information was converted to a Geographic Information System (GIS) format that meets FEMA’s FIRM Database specifications and geographic information standards. This information is provided in a digital format so that it can be incorporated into a local GIS and be accessed more easily by the community. The FIRM Database includes most of the tabular information contained in the FIS Report in such a way that the data can be associated with pertinent spatial features. For example, the information contained in the Floodway Data table and Flood Profiles can be linked to the cross sections that are shown on the FIRMs. Additional information about the FIRM Database and its contents can be found in FEMA’s Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping, www.fema.gov/flood-maps/guidance-partners/guidelines-standards. Base map information shown on the FIRM was derived from the sources described in Table 21. Table 21: Base Map Sources Data Data Data Type Data Provider Date Scale Data Description Alaska Department of Spatial and attribute information Administrative Large Natural Resources 2006 1:63,360 for Administrative Large Parcel Parcel Boundaries - Land Records Boundaries extents Information Section Airports Digitized from Spatial and attribute information L-3 Services, Inc. 2007 1:4,000 Orthophoto f or airport runways Alaska Department of Alaska Airstrips Natural Resources Spatial and attribute information 2007 1:63,360 1:63,360 - Land Records f or airport runways Information Section Alaska Department of Spatial and attribute information Alaska State Park Natural Resources 2007 1:63,360 for Alaska State Park Unit Units through ILMA - Land Records extents Information Section Fairbanks North Star Borough Spatial and attribute information City Boundaries Community 2006 1:63,360 for political boundary extents Planning Department 82 Page 910 of 1055 Table 21: Base Map Sources (continued) Data Data Data Type Data Provider Date Scale Data Description Fairbanks North Star Borough Spatial and attribute information Eielson AFB Community 2006 1:63,360 for Eielson AFB boundary Boundary Planning extents Department Fairbanks North Star Borough Spatial and attribute information Ft. Wainwright Community 2006 1:63,360 for Ft. Wainwright Boundary Boundary Planning extents Department Jurisdictional Spatial and attribute information Federal Boundaries, for political boundary extents, Emergency Transportation Lines, transportation, PLSS, Water Management Water Bodies and Bodies, and Areas of Minimal Agency PLSS Sections Flood Hazard National Hydrography Spatial and attribute information United States Dataset HUC8's for STARR II revised Hydrology Geological Survey 2022 19080305, 19080306, analysis - Subbasins feature (USGS) 19080307, 19080309 areas United States National Levee Spatial and attribute information Army Corps of 2016 Database for levees Engineers Spatial and attribute information National Water United States for STARR II revised Hydrology Information System: Geological Survey 2021 analysis - Gage feature point Web Interface (USGS) locations Quickbird Pan Fairbanks North Spatial and attribute information 2005 1:63,360 Sharpened Image Star Borough for structures U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Spatial and attribute information Section Grid Division of 2008 1:63,360 for political land survey system Cadastral Survey extents and Geomatics, Branch of Spatial Records USGS 7.5-Minute United States Spatial and attribute information Series Topographic Geological Survey 1989 1:24,000 for panel layout Maps (USGS) Northwest Spatial and attribute information Water Bodies Hydraulic 2008 1:63,360 for water area polygons Consultants Inc. Northwest Water Lines Digitized Spatial and attribute information Hydraulic 2008 1:63,360 from Orthoimagery for water lines Consultants Inc 83 Page 911 of 1055 6.3 Floodplain and Floodway Delineation The FIRM shows tints, screens, and symbols to indicate floodplains and floodways as well as the locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses and floodway computations. For riverine flooding sources, the mapped floodplain boundaries shown on the FIRM have been delineated using the flood elevations determined at each cross section; between cross sections, the boundaries were interpolated using the topographic elevation data described in Table 22. In cases where the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundaries are close together, only the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain boundary has been shown. Small areas within the floodplain boundaries may lie above the flood elevations but cannot be shown due to limitations of the map scale and/or lack of detailed topographic data. The floodway widths presented in this FIS Report and on the FIRM were computed for certain stream segments on the basis of equal conveyance reduction from each side of the floodplain. Floodway widths were computed at cross sections. Between cross sections, the floodway boundaries were interpolated. Table 2 indicates the flooding sources for which floodways have been determined. The results of the floodway computations for those flooding sources have been tabulated for selected cross sections and are shown in Table 23, “Floodway Data.” Certain flooding sources may have been studied that do not have published BFEs on the FIRMs, or for which there is a need to report the 1-percent-annual-chance flood elevations at selected cross sections because a published Flood Profile does not exist in this FIS Report. These streams may have also been studied using methods to determine non- encroachment zones rather than floodways. For these flooding sources, the 1-percent- annual-chance floodplain boundaries have been delineated using the flood elevations determined at each cross section; between cross sections, the boundaries were interpolated using the topographic elevation data described in Table 22. All topographic data used for modeling or mapping has been converted as necessary to NAVD88. The 1- percent-annual-chance elevations for selected cross sections along these flooding sources, along with their non-encroachment widths, if calculated, are shown in Table 24, “Flood Hazard and Non-Encroachment Data for Selected Streams.” Table 22: Summary of Topographic Elevation Data used in Mapping Source for Topographic Elevation Data Flooding Vertical Horizontal Community Source Description Accuracy Accuracy Citation All within HUC Light Detection and 0.5 foot at Fairbanks 19080305, 1.5-foot Ranging data (LiDAR) – 95% USGS North Star 19080306, pixel QL1 & QL2 3DEP confidence 2018 Borough 19080307, resolution collected in 2017 level 19080309 84 Page 912 of 1055 Table 22: Summary of Topographic Elevation Data used in Mapping (continued) Source for Topographic Elevation Data Flooding Vertical Horizontal Community Source Description Accuracy Accuracy Citation 0.5 foot at Bare earth Fairbanks Mosaiced DEM based 95% captured at USGS North Star Tanana River on USGS 2017 LiDAR confidence every 5- 2017 Borough and USGS 2010 IfSAR level meters Digital Elevation Model (DEM) developed from Fairbanks Light Detection and 2-FT North Star Chena Slough 0.251 MBI 2016 Ranging (LiDAR) point contours Borough data collected in 2010 by AeroMetric The dataset was created using the following nine datasets in order of hierarchy: 3D breaklines South created from the 2006 Fairbanks Local NHC road profiles, 3D Fairbanks Drainage Study breaklines and points NHC_200 North Star – Chena River, from the 2004 FAI DEM, Unknown Unknown 8 (a-f) Borough Little Chena 2006 revised building River, Noyes pad elevations, and Slough points, Groundwater Contours from 1996 USGS study, and contours from the 1985 topography. BFEs shown at cross sections on the FIRM represent the 1-percent-annual-chance water surface elevations shown on the Flood Profiles and in the Floodway Data tables in the FIS Report. Rounded whole-foot elevations may be shown on the FIRM in coastal areas, areas of ponding, and other areas with static base flood elevations. 85 Page 913 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION FLOODWAY (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY INCREASE SECTION   (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) A 0 415 5,712 2.1 429.7 425.8² 426.8 1.0 B 2,170 354 3,958 3 429.7 426.0² 427.0 1.0 C 3,530 353 3,872 3.1 429.7 426.3² 427.2 0.9 D 6,000 335 4,175 2.9 429.7 426.8² 427.6 0.8 E 8,590 280 3,790 3.2 429.7 427.2² 427.9 0.7 F 10,790 310 4,002 3 429.7 427.6² 428.3 0.7 G 13,795 370 3,970 3 429.7 428.2² 428.8 0.6 H 15,880 305 3,837 3.1 429.7 428.6² 429.2 0.6 I 19,790 309 3,533 3.4 429.7 429.3² 429.8 0.5 J 23,700 357 3,917 3.1 430.2 430.2 430.6 0.4 K 26,930 270 4,274 2.8 430.7 430.7 431.1 0.4 L 27,215 247 4,115 2.9 430.7 430.7 431.1 0.4 M 32,970 260 4,269 2.8 431.3 431.3 431.7 0.4 N 33,170 260 4,076 2.9 431.4 431.4 431.8 0.4 O 44,365 229 3,299 3.3 432.9 432.9 433.2 0.3 P 44,505 266 3,404 3.2 432.9 432.9 433.2 0.3 Q 52,320 241 2,937 3.7 434.5 434.5 434.7 0.2 R 56,640 175 2,377 4.6 436.5 436.5 436.7 0.2 S 56,915 177 2,403 4.6 436.9 436.9 437.1 0.2 T 58,560 317 3,374 3.3 437.8 437.8 438.0 0.2 U 59,140 274 3,180 3.8 437.9 437.9 438.1 0.2 1 FEET ABOVE MOUTH ALONG PROFILE BASELINE TABLE 23 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: CHENA RIVER AND INCORPORATED AREAS 86 Page 914 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data (continued) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION FLOODWAY (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY INCREASE SECTION (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) (CONTINUED) V 59,450 238 2,445 4.9 437.9 437.9 438.2 0.3 W 60,244 460 3,447 3.5 438.2 438.2 438.2 0.0 X 60,744 491 2,553 4.7 438.2 438.2 438.3 0.1 Y 68,939 205 3,574 3.4 441.2 441.2 441.2 0.0 Z 74,810 287 4,832 2.5 441.3 441.3 441.5 0.2 AA 74,878 287 4,879 2.5 441.3 441.3 441.5 0.2 AB 78,348 226 3,030 4 441.6 441.6 441.8 0.2 AC 78,408 211 2,965 4 441.7 441.7 441.9 0.2 AD 87,600 262 3,053 3.9 444.2 444.2 444.4 0.2 AE 92,165 251 3,541 3.4 445.2 445.2 445.4 0.2 AF 97,715 237 2,647 4.5 446.5 446.5 446.6 0.1 AG 98,229 265 3,372 3.6 446.9 446.9 447.0 0.1 AH 105,339 351 2,227 5.4 449.7 449.7 449.8 0.1 AI 115,094 234 2,379 5 456.2 456.2 456.3 0.1 AJ 119,279 261 2,483 4.8 458.0 458.0 458.1 0.1 AK 122,519 220 2,548 4.7 459.2 459.2 459.4 0.2 AL 126,499 211 2,451 4.4 460.3 460.3 460.5 0.2 AM 130,659 269 3,058 3.9 461.3 461.3 461.5 0.2 AN 138,889 230 2,176 3.6 462.2 462.2 462.3 0.1 AO 139,200 * * * 462.3 * * * AP 144,200 * * * 463.9 * * * AQ 150,450 * * * 464.9 * * * 1 FEET ABOVE MOUTH ALONG PROFILE BASELINE * DATA NOT AVAILABLE TABLE 23 TABLE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: CHENA RIVER AND INCORPORATED AREAS 87 Page 915 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data (continued) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION FLOODWAY (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY INCREASE SECTION (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) (CONTINUED) AR 153,450 * * * 467.0 * * * AS 156,475 * * * 467.8 * * * AT 160,050 * * * 469.2 * * * AU 165,490 * * * 470.8 * * * AV 172,700 * * * 473.0 * * * AW 180,200 * * * 476.1 * * * AX 188,700 * * * 479.0 * * * AY 194,150 * * * 480.3 * * * AZ 202,500 * * * 482.6 * * * BA 208,700 * * * 484.7 * * * BB 209,600 * * * 484.9 * * * BC 211,200 * * * 485.2 * * * BD 213,500 * * * 485.6 * * * BE 215,050 * * * 486.2 * * * BF 217,500 * * * 487.3 * * * BG 221,000 * * * 489.1 * * * BH 228,780 * * * 493.0 * * * BI 236,100 * * * 495.2 * * * BJ 238,500 * * * 495.8 * * * BK 243,200 * * * 497.3 * * * BL 244,400 * * * 497.8 * * * BM 246,200 * * * 498.5 * * * BN 246,700 * * * 498.9 * * * 1 FEET ABOVE MOUTH ALONG PROFILE BASELINE * DATA NOT AVAILABLE TABLE 2 TABLE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, 3 ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: CHENA RIVER AND INCORPORATED AREAS 88 Page 916 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data (continued) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION FLOODWAY (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY2 INCREASE SECTION (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) A 1,018 110 343 1.3 458.0 453.4 453.4 0.0 B 1,972 148 464 0.9 458.0 453.6 453.6 0.0 C 2,830 158 578 0.8 458.0 453.7 453.7 0.0 D 3,288 202 1,029 0.4 458.0 455.3 455.3 0.0 E 4,484 218 1,267 0.3 458.0 455.4 455.4 0.0 F 5,583 196 738 0.6 458.2 455.4 455.4 0.0 G 6,785 194 626 0.7 458.8 455.5 455.5 0.0 H 7,850 147 604 0.7 459.0 455.6 455.6 0.0 I 9,088 148 370 1.2 459.5 455.7 455.7 0.0 J 10,156 135 334 1.3 460.1 456.1 456.1 0.0 K 11,479 120 307 1.4 460.8 456.7 456.7 0.0 L 12,957 135 349 1.3 461.3 457.5 457.5 0.0 M 14,233 164 523 0.8 462.0 457.9 457.9 0.0 N 15,234 136 643 0.7 462.0 458.0 458.0 0.0 O 16,410 148 515 0.8 462.6 459.3 459.3 0.0 P 17,769 181 342 1.2 463.4 459.5 459.5 0.0 Q 18,986 312 320 1.3 463.8 460.6 460.7 0.1 R 20,152 132 310 1.3 464.2 461.0 461.0 0.0 S 21,427 102 201 2 465.0 461.8 461.8 0.0 T 22,680 40 103 3.9 466.1 463.5 463.5 0.0 U 23,847 120 296 1.4 467.2 464.8 464.8 0.0 V 25,202 167 227 1.8 468.0 465.3 465.3 0.0 W 26,598 503 294 1.5 469.0 466.7 466.7 0.0 1Stream distance in feet above confluence with Chena River 2Regulatory BFEs (for all cross-section except BH and BG) are derived from groundwater flooding analysis. Floodway encroachment and surcharge analysis are performed in the hydraulic model (HEC-RAS) and show results generally lower than groundwater BFEs. TABLE 2 TABLE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, 3 ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: CHENA SLOUGH AND INCORPORATED AREAS 89 Page 917 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data (continued) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION FLOODWAY (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY2 INCREASE SECTION (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) Chena Slough (CONTINUED) X 27,643 124 349 1.2 469.7 467.1 467.1 0.0 Y 29,077 143 440 0.9 471.0 467.3 467.3 0.0 Z 30,273 240 494 0.8 471.2 467.5 467.5 0.0 AA 31,600 148 460 0.8 471.2 467.6 467.6 0.0 AB 32,617 140 312 1.2 471.2 467.7 467.7 0.0 AC 33,645 87 214 1.7 471.5 468.2 468.2 0.0 AD 34,219 112 205 1.8 471.8 468.9 468.9 0.0 AE 35,302 114 568 0.7 472.3 469.1 469.1 0.0 AF 36,051 177 454 0.8 472.8 470.5 470.5 0.0 AG 36,975 139 501 0.4 473.4 470.6 470.6 0.0 AH 38,276 84 291 0.7 474.7 470.6 470.6 0.0 AI 39,075 44 81 2.3 475.2 471.0 471.0 0.0 AJ 40,292 76 185 1 475.4 471.8 471.8 0.0 AK 41,474 80 192 1 476.2 472.1 472.1 0.0 AL 42,700 49 126 1.5 476.5 473.8 473.8 0.0 AM 43,517 20 63 3 477.2 475.0 475.1 0.1 AN 44,389 48 159 1.2 477.8 475.3 475.4 0.1 AO 45,362 108 337 0.6 478.8 475.4 475.5 0.1 AP 46,242 66 148 1.3 479.8 475.9 476.0 0.1 AQ 47,465 107 163 1.2 481.1 476.5 476.5 0.0 AR 48,752 94 130 1.5 482.3 477.3 477.3 0.0 AS 49,692 194 653 0.3 483.2 480.2 480.2 0.0 AT 50,766 201 597 0.3 484.0 480.2 480.2 0.0 1Stream distance in feet above confluence with Chena River 2Regulatory BFEs (for all cross-section except BH and BG) are derived from groundwater flooding analysis. Floodway encroachment and surcharge analysis are performed in the hydraulic model (HEC-RAS) and show results generally lower than groundwater BFEs. TABLE 2 TABLE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, 3 ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: CHENA SLOUGH AND INCORPORATED AREAS 90 Page 918 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data (continued) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION FLOODWAY (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY2 INCREASE SECTION (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) Chena Slough (CONTINUED) AU 51,864 152 470 0.4 484.5 480.2 480.2 0.0 AV 52,705 144 473 0.2 485.0 480.8 480.8 0.0 AW 53,677 184 287 0.4 485.4 480.9 480.9 0.0 AX 54,559 72 138 0.8 485.4 481.0 481.0 0.0 AY 55,684 95 190 0.6 485.4 481.4 481.4 0.0 AZ 56,312 131 243 0.5 485.4 481.8 481.8 0.0 BA 57,049 159 144 0.8 485.4 481.9 481.9 0.0 BB 58,143 102 183 0.5 485.8 482.3 482.3 0.0 BC 59,238 89 99 0.9 486.5 482.4 482.4 0.0 BD 60,355 80 145 0.6 486.5 482.6 482.6 0.0 BE 61,388 94 247 0.4 487.1 482.7 482.7 0.0 BF 62,188 85 50 1.8 488.1 486.0 486.0 0.0 BG 63,042 168 841 0.1 489.9 489.9 489.9 0.0 BH 63,866 141 745 0.1 489.9 489.9 489.9 0.0 BI 65,001 115 574 0.2 490.4 489.9 489.9 0.0 BJ 66,069 137 483 0.2 490.9 489.9 489.9 0.0 BK 67,050 92 180 0.5 493.0 489.9 489.9 0.0 BL 68,221 113 241 0.4 494.0 490.9 490.9 0.0 BM 69,186 107 146 0.6 494.1 491.0 491.0 0.0 BN 70,297 85 120 0.5 494.1 491.1 491.1 0.0 BO 71,043 123 184 0.3 495.1 491.8 491.8 0.0 1Stream distance in feet above confluence with Chena River 2Regulatory BFEs (for all cross-section except BH and BG) are derived from groundwater flooding analysis. Floodway encroachment and surcharge analysis are performed in the hydraulic model (HEC-RAS) and show results generally lower than groundwater BFEs. TABLE 2 TABLE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, 3 ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: CHENA SLOUGH AND INCORPORATED AREAS 91 Page 919 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data (continued) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION FLOODWAY (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY2 INCREASE SECTION (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) Chena Slough (CONTINUED) BP 71,626 73 35 1.6 495.3 491.8 491.8 0.0 BQ 72,767 190 501 0.1 495.8 493.3 493.3 0.0 BR 73,895 221 228 0.2 496.8 493.3 493.3 0.0 BS 75,019 78 63 0.6 497.2 493.6 493.6 0.0 BT 76,223 88 125 0.3 497.8 495.0 495.0 0.0 BU 77,404 65 12 1.7 499.9 496.5 496.5 0.0 BV 78,444 47 31 0.7 501.5 496.6 496.6 0.0 BW 79,520 61 104 0.2 502.5 496.7 496.7 0.0 BX 80,383 72 109 0.2 503.0 497.0 497.0 0.0 BY 81,252 82 184 0.1 503.5 497.2 497.2 0.0 BZ 82,366 131 261 0.1 503.5 499.6 499.6 0.0 CA 82,778 80 143 0.2 503.5 499.6 499.6 0.0 CB 83,646 64 182 0.1 503.5 500.4 500.4 0.0 1Stream distance in feet above confluence with Chena River 2Regulatory BFEs (for all cross-section except BH and BG) are derived from groundwater flooding analysis. Floodway encroachment and surcharge analysis are performed in the hydraulic model (HEC-RAS) and show results generally lower than groundwater BFEs. TABLE 2 TABLE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, 3 ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: CHENA SLOUGH AND INCORPORATED AREAS 92 Page 920 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data (continued) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION FLOODWAY (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY INCREASE SECTION (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) A 0 310 1,833 3.7 462.9 462.9 463.9 1.0 B 459 310 1,314 5.1 463.0 463.0 464.0 1.0 C 1,865 103 1,170 5.8 464.2 464.2 464.9 0.7 D 2,025 185 1,567 4.3 464.5 464.5 465.3 0.8 E 11,815 231 1,591 4.3 467.9 467.9 468.8 0.3 F 15,720 970 2,293 3.1 469.4 469.4 469.6 0.2 G 32,593 1,330 5,374 1.5 474.2 474.2 474.8 0.6 H 45,872 1,729 6,535 1.4 476.8 476.8 477.2 0.4 I 56,995 120 1,291 6.9 480.0 480.0 480.5 0.5 J 80,483 1,739 5,125 1.7 489.3 489.3 490.3 1.0 K 88,080 212 1,986 4.5 491.9 491.9 492.5 0.6 L 88,163 660 3,157 2.8 492.3 492.3 492.7 0.4 M 98,957 1,450 5,338 1.7 494.6 494.6 495.6 1.0 1 FEET ABOVE MOUTH TABLE 2 TABLE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, 3 ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: LITTLE CHENA RIVER AND INCORPORATED AREAS 93 Page 921 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data (continued) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION FLOODWAY (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY INCREASE SECTION (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) A 100 112 1,136 0.9 431.6 431.6 432.0 0.4 B 4,110 119 806 1.3 431.7 431.7 432.1 0.4 C 4,330 95 628 1.6 431.7 431.7 432.1 0.4 D 8,895 105 707 1.5 432.2 432.2 432.6 0.4 E 16,890 65 100 2.6 433.5 433.5 433.8 0.3 F 17,025 65 403 2.6 433.5 433.5 433.8 0.3 G 25,440 94 539 1.9 435.6 435.6 435.8 0.3 H 25,600 87 378 2.7 435.7 435.7 435.9 0.2 I 28,335 65 300 3.4 437.4 437.4 437.5 0.1 J 28,545 66 424 2.4 437.6 437.6 437.7 0.1 K 29,340 101 598 1.7 437.8 437.8 437.9 0.1 1 FEET ABOVE MOUTH TABLE 2 TABLE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, 3 ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: NOYES SLOUGH AND INCORPORATED AREAS 94 Page 922 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data (continued) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION2 FLOODWAY3 (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY INCREASE SECTION (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) A 0.2 8,548 16,682 2.0 419.0 419.0 419.6 0.6 B 1.1 10,252 20,408 1.8 421.0 421.0 421.5 0.5 C 2.7 11,278 20,936 1.4 424.0 424.0 424.3 0.3 D 4.2 17,596 36,209 1.3 425.0 425.0 425.3 0.3 E 5.6 22,019 44,950 1.2 427.0 427.0 427.3 0.3 F 7.0 21,878 45,052 1.2 428.0 428.0 428.2 0.2 * 7.8 23,692 46,532 1.1 429.0 429.0 429.2 0.2 * 8.4 20,539 40,100 1.4 430.0 430.0 430.2 0.2 G 9.0 18,000 31,442 1.5 431.0 431.0 431.2 0.2 H 9.3 18,319 31,108 1.6 432.0 432.0 432.2 0.2 * 9.5 19,512 35,273 1.5 433.0 433.0 433.2 0.2 * 9.9 20,320 35,626 1.5 434.0 434.0 434.3 0.3 * 10.3 20,050 33,894 1.5 435.0 435.0 435.3 0.3 I 10.5 20,174 32,684 1.6 436.0 436.0 436.3 0.3 * 11.2 20,856 32,128 1.5 437.0 437.0 437.3 0.3 J 11.9 22,638 29,781 1.5 439.0 439.0 439.3 0.3 * 12.2 22,729 29,164 1.6 440.0 440.0 440.3 0.3 K 13.3 22,390 27,686 1.7 443.0 443.0 443.3 0.3 * 14.2 21,379 24,901 1.7 445.0 445.0 445.3 0.3 L 14.7 20,211 22,705 1.6 447.0 447.0 447.3 0.3 M 15.7 21,522 27,837 1.5 450.0 450.0 450.4 0.4 N 16.9 23,357 30,856 1.8 452.0 452.0 452.4 0.4 O 17.5 22,474 32,290 1.6 454.0 454.0 454.3 0.3 1 Miles above downstream limit of detailed study 2 Floodway computed by 2-D model at this location 3 Values reported are based on averages calculated across evaluation lines. Refer to model result grid for modeled variability in elevation and surcharges across the floodway. *Data Not available TABLE 2 TABLE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, 3 ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: TANANA RIVER AND INCORPORATED AREAS 95 Page 923 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data (continued) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION FLOODWAY (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY INCREASE SECTION (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) P 19.6 22,296 30,114 1.8 459.0 459.0 459.3 0.3 Q 20.1 21,015 29,954 1.9 461.0 461.0 461.3 0.3 R 20.9 18,045 26,998 2.0 465.0 465.0 465.3 0.3 S 22.2 18,002 28,798 1.9 469.0 469.0 469.3 0.3 T 23.3 15,379 24,624 2.0 474.0 474.0 474.3 0.3 U 24.5 18,837 32,821 1.9 479.0 479.0 479.3 0.3 V 26.2 20,737 33,984 2.2 487.0 487.0 487.2 0.2 W 27.2 17,557 31,230 2.0 492.0 492.0 492.3 0.3 X 28.8 15,797 22,504 2.4 500.0 500.0 500.4 0.4 Y 30.1 16,950 28,256 2.2 506.0 506.0 506.3 0.3 Z 30.9 16,596 25,346 2.6 511.0 511.0 511.4 0.4 AA 32.0 15,511 24,901 2.5 515.0 515.0 515.3 0.3 AB 32.7 12,354 20,572 2.6 519.0 519.0 519.5 0.5 AC 33.8 8,685 16,162 3.3 524.0 524.0 524.4 0.4 AD 34.9 12,082 19,832 2.7 530.0 530.0 530.4 0.4 AE 35.5 12,640 20,938 2.8 533.0 533.0 533.4 0.4 AF 36.3 10,239 16,220 3.3 536.0 536.0 536.4 0.4 AG 38.0 12,163 17,687 3.1 544.0 544.0 544.4 0.4 AH 39.9 10,665 16,538 3.3 553.0 553.0 553.2 0.2 AI 41.2 7,035 14,040 4.3 561.0 561.0 561.2 0.2 AJ 42.2 9,738 20,045 3.0 566.0 566.0 566.3 0.3 AK 43.0 10,658 21,773 2.7 570.0 570.0 570.2 0.2 AL 44.1 9,864 19,755 2.9 575.0 575.0 575.1 0.1 AM 45.0 7,204 13,923 3.8 580.0 580.0 580.2 0.2 1 Mile above downstream limit of detailed study 2 Floodway computed by 2-D model at this location 3 Values reported are based on averages calculated across evaluation lines. Refer to model result grid for modeled variability in elevation and surcharges across the floodway. TABLE 2 TABLE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, 3 ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: TANANA RIVER AND INCORPORATED AREAS 96 Page 924 of 1055 Table 23: Floodway Data (continued) 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION LOCATION FLOODWAY (FEET NAVD88) SECTION MEAN CROSS WIDTH WITHOUT WITH DISTANCE 1 AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY INCREASE SECTION   (FEET) FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (SQ. FEET) (FEET/ SEC) AN 45.8 6,419 13,318 4.2 585.0 585.0 585.2 0.2 AO 46.2 7,495 15,109 3.6 588.0 588.0 588.1 0.1 AP 46.9 5,495 10,944 4.5 592.0 592.0 592.1 0.1 AQ 47.8 5,073 9,936 4.9 597.0 597.0 597.2 0.2 AR 49.1 8,100 16,578 2.8 604.0 604.0 604.1 0.1 AS 49.4 9,295 18,279 2.8 607.0 607.0 607.1 0.1 AT 50.1 8,771 17,320 3.3 610.0 610.0 610.1 0.1 1 Miles above downstream limit of detailed study 2 Floodway computed by 2-D model at this location 3 Values reported are based on averages calculated across evaluation lines. Refer to model result grid for modeled variability in elevation and surcharges across the floodway. TABLE 2 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, 3 ALASKA FLOODING SOURCE: TANANA RIVER AND INCORPORATED AREAS 97 Page 925 of 1055 Non-encroachment areas may be delineated where it is not possible to delineate floodways because specific channel profiles with bridge and culvert geometry were not developed. Any non-encroachment determinations for this Flood Risk Project have been tabulated for selected cross sections and are shown in Table 24. The non-encroachment width indicates the measured distance left and right (looking downstream) from the mapped center of the stream to the non-encroachment boundary based on a surcharge of 1.0 foot or less. Table 24: Flood Hazard and Non-Encroachment Data for Selected Streams [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] 6.4 Coastal Flood Hazard Mapping This section is not applicable to this Flood Risk Project. Table 25: Summary of Coastal Transect Mapping Considerations [Not applicable to this Flood Risk Project] 6.5 FIRM Revisions This FIS Report and the FIRM are based on the most up-to-date information available to FEMA at the time of its publication; however, flood hazard conditions change over time. Communities or private parties may request flood map revisions at any time. Certain types of requests require submission of supporting data. FEMA may also initiate a revision. Revisions may take several forms, including Letters of Map Amendment (LOMAs), Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-Fs), Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs) (referred to collectively as Letters of Map Change (LOMCs)), Physical Map Revisions (PMRs), and FEMA-contracted restudies. These types of revisions are further described below. Some of these types of revisions do not result in the republishing of the FIS Report. To assure that any user is aware of all revisions, it is advisable to contact the community repository of flood-hazard data (shown in Table 30, “Map Repositories”). 6.5.1 Letters of Map Amendment A LOMA is an official revision by letter to an effective NFIP map. A LOMA results from an administrative process that involves the review of scientific or technical data submitted by the owner or lessee of property who believes the property has incorrectly been included in a designated SFHA. A LOMA amends the currently effective FEMA map and establishes that a specific property is not located in a SFHA. To obtain an application for a LOMA, visit www.fema.gov/flood-maps/change-your-flood- zone and download the form “MT-1 Application Forms and Instructions for Conditional and Final Letters of Map Amendment and Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill”. Visit the “Flood Map-Related Fees” section to determine the cost, if any, of applying for a LOMA. FEMA offers a tutorial on how to apply for a LOMA. The LOMA Tutorial Series can be accessed at www.fema.gov/flood-maps/tutorials. For more information about how to apply for a LOMA, call the FEMA Mapping and 98 Page 926 of 1055 Insurance eXchange; toll free, at 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). 6.5.2 Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill A LOMR-F is an official revision by letter to an effective NFIP map. A LOMR-F states FEMA’s determination concerning whether a structure or parcel has been elevated on fill above the base flood elevation and is, therefore, excluded from the SFHA. Information about obtaining an application for a LOMR-F can be obtained in the same manner as that for a LOMA, by visiting www.fema.gov/flood-maps/change-your-flood- zone for the “MT-1 Application Forms and Instructions for Conditional and Final Letters of Map Amendment and Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill” or by calling the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange, toll free, at 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). Fees for applying for a LOMR-F, if any, are listed in the “Flood Map-Related Fees” section. A tutorial for LOMR-F is available at www.fema.gov/flood-maps/tutorials. 6.5.3 Letters of Map Revision A LOMR is an official revision to the currently effective FEMA map. It is used to change flood zones, floodplain and floodway delineations, flood elevations and planimetric features. All requests for LOMRs should be made to FEMA through the chief executive officer of the community, since it is the community that must adopt any changes and revisions to the map. If the request for a LOMR is not submitted through the chief executive officer of the community, evidence must be submitted that the community has been notified of the request. To obtain an application for a LOMR, visit www.fema.gov/flood-maps/change-your-flood- zone and download the form “MT-2 Application Forms and Instructions for Conditional Letters of Map Revision and Letters of Map Revision”. Visit the “Flood Map-Related Fees” section to determine the cost of applying for a LOMR. For more information about how to apply for a LOMR, call the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange; toll free, at 1-877- FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627) to speak to a Map Specialist. Previously issued mappable LOMCs (including LOMRs) that have been incorporated into the Fairbanks North Star Borough FIRM are listed in Table 26. Please note that this table only includes LOMCs that have been issued on the FIRM panels updated by this map revision. For all other areas within this county, users should be aware that revisions to the FIS Report made by prior LOMRs may not be reflected herein and users will need to continue to use the previously issued LOMRs to obtain the most current data. Table 26: Incorporated Letters of Map Change Case Number Effective Date Flooding Source FIRM Panel(s) 02090C4377K, 20-10-0898P 7/6/2021 Chena River 02090C4379K, 02090C4383K 02090C7275K, 14-10-1677P 4/15/2015 Harding Lake 02090C7300K 99 Page 927 of 1055 6.5.4 Physical Map Revisions A Physical Map Revisions (PMR) is an official republication of a community’s NFIP map to effect changes to base flood elevations, floodplain boundary delineations, regulatory floodways and planimetric features. These changes typically occur as a result of structural works or improvements, annexations resulting in additional flood hazard areas or correction to base flood elevations or SFHAs. The community’s chief executive officer must submit scientific and technical data to FEMA to support the request for a PMR. The data will be analyzed and the map will be revised if warranted. The community is provided with copies of the revised information and is afforded a review period. When the base flood elevations are changed, a 90-day appeal period is provided. A 6-month adoption period for formal approval of the revised map(s) is also provided. For more information about the PMR process, please visit www.fema.gov and visit the Floods & Maps “Change Your Flood Zone Designation” section. 6.5.5 Contracted Restudies The NFIP provides for a periodic review and restudy of flood hazards within a given community. FEMA accomplishes this through a national watershed-based mapping needs assessment strategy, known as the Coordinated Needs Management Strategy (CNMS). The CNMS is used by FEMA to assign priorities and allocate funding for new flood hazard analyses used to update the FIS Report and FIRM. The goal of CNMS is to define the validity of the engineering study data within a mapped inventory. The CNMS is used to track the assessment process, document engineering gaps and their resolution, and aid in prioritization for using flood risk as a key factor for areas identified for flood map updates. Visit www.fema.gov to learn more about the CNMS or contact the FEMA Regional Office listed in Section 8 of this FIS Report. 6.5.6 Community Map History The current FIRM presents flooding information for the entire geographic area of Fairbanks North Star Borough. Previously, separate FIRMs, Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBMs) and/or Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs) may have been prepared for the incorporated communities and the unincorporated areas in the county that had identified SFHAs. Current and historical data relating to the maps prepared for the project area are presented in Table 27, “Community Map History.” A description of each of the column headings and the source of the date is also listed below. • Community Name includes communities falling within the geographic area shown on the FIRM, including those that fall on the boundary line, nonparticipating communities, and communities with maps that have been rescinded. Communities with No Special Flood Hazards are indicated by a footnote. If all maps (FHBM, FBFM, and FIRM) were rescinded for a community, it is not listed in this table unless SFHAs have been identified in this community. • Initial Identification Date (First NFIP Map Published) is the date of the first NFIP map that identified flood hazards in the community. If the FHBM has been converted to a FIRM, the initial FHBM date is shown. If the community has never 100 Page 928 of 1055 been mapped, the upcoming effective date or “pending” (for Preliminary FIS Reports) is shown. If the community is listed in Table 27 but not identified on the map, the community is treated as if it were unmapped. • Initial FHBM Effective Date is the effective date of the first FHBM. This date may be the same date as the Initial NFIP Map Date. • FHBM Revision Date(s) is the date(s) that the FHBM was revised, if applicable. • Initial FIRM Effective Date is the date of the first effective FIRM for the community. • FIRM Revision Date(s) is the date(s) the FIRM was revised, if applicable. This is the revised date that is shown on the FIRM panel, if applicable. As countywide studies are completed or revised, each community listed should have its FIRM dates updated accordingly to reflect the date of the countywide study. Once the FIRMs exist in countywide format, as PMRs of FIRM panels within the county are completed, the FIRM Revision Dates in the table for each community affected by the PMR are updated with the date of the PMR, even if the PMR did not revise all the panels within that community. The initial effective date for the Fairbanks North Star Borough FIRMs in countywide format was 03/17/2014. Table 27: Community Map History Initial Initial FHBM FHBM Initial FIRM FIRM Identification Effective Revision Effective Revision Community Name Date Date Date(s) Date Date(s) 01/08/2027 09/18/2020 03/17/2014 09/20/1996 Fairbanks North 01/02/1992 06/25/1969 N/A N/A 06/25/1969 08/24/1982 Star Borough 11/04/1980 09/11/1979 12/09/1977 10/03/1975 07/01/1974 SECTION 7.0 – CONTRACTED STUDIES AND COMMUNITY COORDINATION 7.1 Contracted Studies Table 28 provides a summary of the contracted studies, by flooding source, that are included in this FIS Report. 101 Page 929 of 1055 Table 28: Summary of Contracted Studies Included in this FIS Report FIS Work Report Completed Affected Flooding Source Dated Contractor Number Date Communities Fairbanks Northwest North Star EMS- Chena River, Little Chena River, Hydraulic Borough, City 3/17/2014 2001- 6/30/2009 Noyes Slough Consultants, of Fairbanks, CO-0067 Inc. City of North Pole Fairbanks Northwest North Star EMS- South Fairbanks Local Drainage Hydraulic Borough, City 3/17/2014 2001- 6/30/2009 Study Consultants, of Fairbanks, CO-0067 Inc. City of North Pole Fairbanks Michael North Star HSFE60- August Baker, Jr., Borough, City Chena Slough 9/18/2020 15-D- 2016 / July Inc. / of Fairbanks, 0005 2018 STARR II City of North Pole Clear Creek, Columbia Creek, Cripple Creek, Deadman Slough, French Creek, Garrison Slough, Isabella Creek, Moose Creek, Pearl Creek, Unnamed Ditch_1, Unnamed Ditch_2, Unnamed Ditch_3, Unnamed Tributary Chena River_5, Unnamed Tributary Chena River_5_1, Unnamed Tributary Chena River_5_1_1, Unnamed Tributary Chena River_5_2, Unnamed Tributary Chena River_5_3, Unnamed Tributary Chena Fairbanks River_5_4, Unnamed Tributary North Star HSFE60- Chena River_5_5, Unnamed 01/08/202 STARR II Borough, City 15-D- 12/31/2023 Tributary Chena River_5_6, 7 (2D Studies) of Fairbanks, 0005 Unnamed Tributary Chena River_6, City of North Unnamed Tributary Chena River_7, Pole Unnamed Tributary Chena Slough_1, Unnamed Tributary Chena Slough_1_1, Unnamed Tributary Chena Slough_1_1_1, Unnamed Tributary Chena Slough_1_2, Unnamed Tributary Columbia Creek_1, Unnamed Tributary Columbia Creek_1_2, Unnamed Tributary French Creek_3, Unnamed Tributary Garrision Slough_1, Unnamed Tributary Moose Creek_1, Unnamed Tributary Moose Creek_2 102 Page 930 of 1055 Table 28: Summary of Contracted Studies Included in this FIS Report (continued) FIS Work Report Completed Affected Flooding Source Dated Contractor Number Date Communities Ace Creek, Alder Creek, Ballaine Lake, Big Eldorado Creek, Caribou Lake, Chatanika River, Chena River, Columbia Creek, Cripple Creek, Goldstream Creek, Happy Creek, Hopper Creek, Iowa Creek, Little Chena River, Monument Creek, Moose Creek, Mullen Slough, North Fork Chena River, O'Connor Creek, Potlatch Creek, Saint Patrick Creek, Smallwood Creek, Smith Lake, Steele Creek, Unnamed Lake_3, Unnamed Fairbanks Tributary Chena River_1, Unnamed North Star HSFE60- Tributary Chena River_1_1, 01/08/202 STARR II Borough, City 15-D- 12/31/2023 Unnamed Tributary Chena River_2, 7 (1D Studies) of Fairbanks, 0005 Unnamed Tributary Chena City of North River_2_2, Unnamed Tributary Pole Chena River_3, Unnamed Tributary Chena River_4, Unnamed Tributary Cripple Creek_1, Unnamed Tributary Goldstream Creek_1, Unnamed Tributary Little Chena River_1, Unnamed Tributary Little Chena River_2, Unnamed Tributary Potlatch Creek, Unnamed Tributary Smallwood Creek, Unnamed Tributary Wigwam Creek, Wigwam Creek Fairbanks North Star EMS- 01/08/202 Borough, City Richardson Overflow, Tanana River HDR 2019- 8/25/2022 7 of Fairbanks, CA-0019 City of North Pole 7.2 Community Meetings The dates of the community meetings held for this Flood Risk Project and previous Flood Risk Projects are shown in Table 29. These meetings may have previously been referred to by a variety of names (Community Coordination Officer (CCO), Scoping, Discovery, etc.), but all meetings represent opportunities for FEMA, community officials, study contractors, and other invited guests to discuss the planning for and results of the project. 103 Page 931 of 1055 Table 29: Community Meetings FIS Report Community Dated Date of Meeting Meeting Type Attended By Representatives of City of North Pole, Fairbanks North Fairbanks North Star 4/23/2019 Initial CCO Star Borough, FEMA, State of Alaska, Study Contractor, Borough, City of 9/18/2020 USACE Fairbanks, City of Representatives of Fairbanks North Star Borough, North Pole 6/20/2019 Final CCO FEMA, State of Alaska, Study Contractor Representatives of Fairbanks North Star Borough, FEMA 7/6/2023 & Flood Risk Region X, State of Alaska, Study Contractors (HDR & 8/29/2023 Review STARR II & CERC) Representatives of City of Fairbanks, Fairbanks North Fairbanks North Star 1/8/2027 02/06/2025 Final CCO Star Borough, FEMA Region X, State of Alaska, Study Borough Contractors (STARR II & CERC) Representatives of Fairbanks North Star Borough, FEMA 6/3/2025 – 6/5/2025 Open House Region X, State of Alaska, Study Contractors (STARR II & CERC), Local Residents 104 Page 932 of 1055 SECTION 8.0 – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Information concerning the pertinent data used in the preparation of this FIS Report can be obtained by submitting an order with any required payment to the FEMA Engineering Library. For more information on this process, see www.fema.gov. Table 30 is a list of the locations where FIRMs for Fairbanks North Star Borough can be viewed. Please note that the maps at these locations are for reference only and are not for distribution. Also, please note that only the maps for the community listed in the table are available at that particular repository. A user may need to visit another repository to view maps from an adjacent community. Table 30: Map Repositories Community Address City State Zip Code Fairbanks Juanita Helms Administration Center North Star Fairbanks Community Planning Department Fairbanks AK 99701 Borough 907 Terminal Street The National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) dataset is a compilation of effective FIRM Databases and LOMCs. Together they create a GIS data layer for a State or Territory. The NFHL is updated as studies become effective and extracts are made available to the public monthly. NFHL data can be viewed or ordered from the website shown in Table 31. Table 31 contains useful contact information regarding the FIS Report, the FIRM, and other relevant flood hazard and GIS data. In addition, information about the State NFIP Coordinator and GIS Coordinator is shown in this table. At the request of FEMA, each Governor has designated an agency of State or territorial government to coordinate that State's or territory's NFIP activities. These agencies often assist communities in developing and adopting necessary floodplain management measures. State GIS Coordinators are knowledgeable about the availability and location of State and local GIS data in their state. 105 Page 933 of 1055 Table 31: Additional Information FEMA and the NFIP FEMA and FEMA www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/know-your- Engineering Library website risk/engineers-surveyors-architects NFIP website www.fema.gov/flood-insurance NFHL Dataset msc.fema.gov FEMA Region X Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 (425) 487-4657 Other Federal Agencies USGS website www.usgs.gov Hydraulic Engineering Center www.hec.usace.army.mil website State Agencies and Organizations State NFIP Coordinator Alaska Division of Community & Regional Affairs 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1640 Anchorage, AK 99501 State GIS Coordinator Alaska Geospatial Office Department of Natural Resources 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 706 Anchorage, AK 99501 SECTION 9.0 – BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES Table 32 includes sources used in the preparation of and cited in this FIS Report as well as additional studies that have been conducted in the study area. 106 Page 934 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link State of State of Alaska, Alaska, Department of Fairbanks, Alaska - A AK 1974 Department Juneau, AK 7/1/1974 Economic Community Profile of Economic Development Development State Revenue Sharing State of AK 1990 State of Alaska Program (to be published in 1990-1991 Alaska 1991) Alaska Alaska Department Department of of Natural AKDNR Natural Resources Administrative Large Parcel Resources - Anchorage, 6/13/2006 2006 - Land Records Boundaries Land AK Information Records Section Information Section Alaska Alaska Department Department of of Natural AKDNR Natural Resources Alaska State Park Units Resources - Anchorage, 10/30/2007 2007 - Land Records through ILMA Land AK Information Records Section Information Section 107 Page 935 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References (continued) Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link Alaska Alaska Department Department of of Natural AKDNR Natural Resources Resources - Anchorage, Alaska Airstrips 1:63,360 11/19/2007 2007a - Land Records Land AK Information Records Section Information Section Consultant report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CEDERG Alaska District on Tanana Cedergren, Cedergren, H.R. 1/1/1972 REN 1972 River seepage analyses, H.R. Seepage Analysis Chena River Lakes Project, Alaska Federal Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map, FEMA Emergency Emergency Washington, Fairbanks North Star 8/24/1982 http://hazards.fema.gov 1982 Management Management D.C. Borough, Alaska Agency Agency Federal Fairbanks North Star Federal FEMA Emergency Borough Mapping; Emergency Washington, 1992 1992 Management Fairbanks_AK0036 through Management D.C. Agency (FEMA) Fairbanks_AK0175 Agency Federal Federal FEMA Emergency Emergency Washington, LOMR 14-10-1677P 4/15/2015 2015 Management Management D.C. Agency Agency Federal Federal FEMA Emergency Emergency Washington, LOMR 16-10-1346P 3/3/2017 2017 Management Management D.C. Agency Agency 108 Page 936 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References (continued) Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link Federal Federal FEMA Emergency Emergency Washington, LOMR 20-10-0898P 7/6/2021 2020 Management Management D.C. Agency Agency Fairbanks International Airport Drainage Mapping Project 60475/65962, Fairbanks Sponsored by the State of Fairbanks Alaska Department of Fairbanks, FIA 1993 International International 1993 Transportation and Public AK Airport Airport Facilities. Plan Sheets and Tables, Sheets SS- SH01.DWG through SS- SH14.DWG Fairbanks FNSB Fairbanks North 2002-03 Quickbird Mosaic Fairbanks, North Star 2002 Star Borough Orthoimages AK Borough State of Alaska, Dept. FNSB Fairbanks North Quickbird Pan Sharpened of Nat. Fairbanks, 2/26/2005 2005 Star Borough Image Resources, AK Division of Forestry Fairbanks North U.S. Air Star Borough FNSB Force, Fairbanks, Community Eielson AFB Boundary 3/8/2006 2006 Eielson AFB, AK Planning Alaska Department 109 Page 937 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References (continued) Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link Fairbanks Fairbanks North North Star Star Borough FNSB Borough Fairbanks, Community City Boundaries 8/9/2006 2006a Community AK Planning Planning Department Department Fairbanks North U.S. Army, Star Borough FNSB Ft. Fairbanks, Community Ft. Wainwright Boundary 3/8/2006 2006b Wainwright, AK Planning Alaska Department Tanana Crossing Flood Frequency Analysis, Draft HDR 2009 HDR HDR 2009 Memo for the Alaska Railroad Corporation Fairbanks Federal North Star Emergency Borough - Washington, HDR 2021 USGS - Gage Analysis 11/1/2021 Management Consultant D.C. Agency HDR Engineering Fairbanks Federal Tanana River PMR - North Star Emergency Borough - Washington, HDR 2022 Hydraulic Modeling and 8/19/2022 Management Consultant D.C. Floodplain Mapping Results Agency HDR Engineering United States IFSAR Digital Terrain Model Intermap IFSAR Englewood, Geological Survey in Fairbanks North Star Technologies 2/6/2017 2017 CO (USGS) Borough, Alaska Inc. 110 Page 938 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References (continued) Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link Federal Emergency Water Features Digitized L-3 Services, Washington, L3 2007 2007 Management from Effective FIRMs Inc. D.C. Agency Airports Digitized from L-3 Services, L3 2007a L-3 Services, Inc. Portland, OR 2007 Orthophoto Inc. Federal Hydraulics Submission for Michael Emergency Washington, MBI 2016 Chena Slough, Fairbanks Baker 8/24/2016 Management D.C. North Star Borough, AK International Agency Federal Michael Emergency Washington, MBI 2016a Subbasin Delineation Baker 6/1/2016 Management D.C. International Agency Federal Michael Emergency HEC-HMS Model Input - Washington, MBI 2016b Baker 6/1/2016 Management Reaches D.C. International Agency Northwest Northwest Hydraulic NHC 2018 Hydraulic Water Bodies Seattle, WA 2008 Consultants Consultants Inc. Inc. Northwest Northwest NHC_200 Water Lines Digitized from Hydraulic Hydraulic Seattle, WA 2008 8 Orthoimagery Consultants Consultants Inc Inc. Federal Northwest NHC_200 Emergency Flood Hazard Features from Hydraulic Washington, 2008 8a Management Effective FIRMs Consultants D.C. Agency Inc. 111 Page 939 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References (continued) Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link Federal Northwest NHC_200 Emergency Base Flood Elevations from Hydraulic Washington, 2008 8b Management Effective FIRMs Consultants D.C. Agency Inc. Federal Northwest Flood Insurance Mapping NHC_200 Emergency Hydraulic Washington, Study for South Fairbanks 2008-09 8c Management Consultants D.C. Local Drainage Agency Inc. Federal Northwest Flood Insurance Mapping NHC_200 Emergency Hydraulic Washington, Study for South Fairbanks 2008-09 8d Management Consultants D.C. Local Drainage Agency Inc. Federal Northwest Flood Insurance Mapping NHC_200 Emergency Hydraulic Washington, Study for South Fairbanks 2008-09 8e Management Consultants D.C. Local Drainage Agency Inc. Flood Insurance Mapping Northwest Northwest NHC_200 Study for South Fairbanks Hydraulic Hydraulic Seattle, WA 5/1/2008 8f Local Drainage, Prepared Consultants Consultants for FEMA, Region 10 United States United States Washington, https://levees.sec.usace. NLD 2022 Army Corps of National Levee Database Army Corps 2016 D.C. army.mil/#/ Engineers of Engineers Personal Communication RCH Surveys RCH 2008 RCH Surveys Ltd 4/22/2008 with Richard Heieren, PS Ltd Federal Strategic Richardson Highway STARR Emergency Alliance for Washington, Embankment and Floodway 2012-13 2012 Management Risk D.C. Study Agency Reduction 112 Page 940 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References (continued) Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link Strategic Federal Alliance for STARRII Emergency Rainfall Runoff Analysis and Washington, Risk 3/19/2021 2021 Management 2D Hydraulic Modeling D.C. Reduction Agency (STARR II) Strategic Federal Alliance for STARRII Emergency Regression/Gage Analysis Washington, Risk 3/19/2021 2021a Management and 1D Hydraulic Modeling D.C. Reduction Agency (STARR II) Federal Field Survey within STARRII Emergency Stantec/STA Washington, Fairbanks North Star 12/23/2021 2021b Management RR II D.C. Borough Agency Federal Jurisdictional Boundaries, Fairbanks STARRII Emergency Washington, Transportation Lines, Water North Star 2022 Management D.C. Bodies and PLSS Sections Borough Agency Fairbanks Federal North Star Tanana River PMR - STARRII Emergency Borough - Washington, Floodplain Mapping Results 8/19/2022 2023 Management Consultant D.C. revised by STARRII Agency HDR Engineering THORNB William D. Regional Geomorphology of John Wiley New York, 1965 URY 1965 Thornbury the United States and Sons,Inc. NY U.S. U.S. Department Department US Alaska: 2000 Summary of Commerce, of CENSUS Population and Housing 11/1/2002 U.S. Census Commerce, 2002 Characteristics Bureau U.S. Census Bureau 113 Page 941 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References (continued) Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link USACE U.S. Army Corps Statistical Methods in Sacramento, Leo R. Beard 1962 1962 of Engineers Hydrology CA U.S. Army U.S. Army Corps Flood Plain Information Corps of USACE Anchorage, of Engineers, Report, Chena River in Engineers, 11/1/1967 1967 AK Alaska District Vicinity of Fairbanks, Alaska Alaska District U.S. Army U.S. Army Corps USACE Flood Insurace Study, North Corps of Anchorage, of Engineers, Engineers, 1/1/1972 1972 Pole, North Star Borough AK Alaska District Alaska District U.S. Army Chena River Lakes Project U.S. Army Corps Corps of USACE Alaska, Design Anchorage, of Engineers, Engineers, 3/1/1978 1978 Memorandum No. 12, AK Alaska District Alaska Interior Drainage Facilities District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, HEC-2 Water Surface USACE Hydrologic Profiles, Generalized Davis, CA 9/1/1982 1982 Engineering Computer Program Center U.S. Army U.S. Army Corps Chena River Lakes Project, USACE Corps of Anchorage, of Engineers, Interior Drainage Channel Engineers, 4/1/1983 1983 AK Alaska District "A" (East) Alaska District Federal Chena River Lakes Project, U.S. Army USACE Emergency Letter Report No. 18, Washington, Corps of 1986-06 1985 Management Tanana Water Surface D.C. Engineers Agency Profile Model 114 Page 942 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References (continued) Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link U.S. Army Corps Chena River Lakes Project - USACE of Engineers, Water Surface Profile 6/1/1985 1985a Alaska District Model, Letter Report 18 U.S. Army U.S. Army Corps Topographic Maps, Scale USACE Corps of Anchorage, of Engineers, 1"=200', contour interval 5 Engineers, 5/21/1985 1985b AK Alaska District feet Alaska District U.S. Army U.S. Army Corps Corps of USACE Chena River Lakes Project - Anchorage, of Engineers, Engineers, 7/1/1987 1987 Water Control Manual, Draft AK Alaska District Alaska District U.S. Army Chena River Lakes Flood U.S. Army Corps Corps of USACE Control Project, Anchorage, of Engineers, Engineers, 5/1/1988 1988 Environmental Assessment, AK Alaska District Alaska Regulatory Release District Report PR-28, The U.S. Army Corps Development and of Engineers, U.S. Army USACE Application of Initial Hydrologic Corps of Davis, CA 7/1/1995 1995 Hydrogeologic Flow Model Engineering Engineers for the Chena River Lakes Center Flood Control Project U.S. Army U.S. Army Corps Levee Certification Report, Corps of USACE Anchorage, of Engineers, Tanana River Levee, Engineers, 5/1/2009 2009 AK Alaska District Fairbanks, Alaska Alaska District 115 Page 943 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References (continued) Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link Interagency Advisory Committee U.S. Department Guidelines For Determining on Water USDI 1982 of the Interior, Flood Flow Frequency, 1982 Data, Office Geological Survey Bulletin 17B of Water Data Coordination U.S. Dept. of Interior, U.S. Dept. of Bureau of Interior, Bureau of Land Land Management, Management, Division of Washington, USDI 2001 Division of Section Grid 2008 Cadastral D.C. Cadastral Survey Survey and and Geomatics, Geomatics, Branch of Spatial Branch of Records Spatial Records U.S. U.S. Geological Alaska Series Topographic USGS Geological 1949-1972 Survey Maps Survey USGS U.S. Geological Flood Frequency in Alaska - 1970 1970 Survey Table I, Open File Report United States U.S. USGS USGS 7.5-Minute Series Geological Survey Geological Reston, VA 1989 1989 Topographic Maps (USGS) Survey 116 Page 944 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References (continued) Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link Water-Resources Investigations Report 96- 4060, Ground Water Levels U.S. USGS U.S. Geological Anchorage, in an Alluvial Plain Between Geological 1996 1996 Survey AK the Tanana and Chena Survey Rivers Near Fairbanks Alaska Water-Resources Investigations Report 98- U.S. Ft. USGS U.S. Geological 4088, Estimate of Aquifer Geological Wainwright, 1998 1998 Survey Properties by Numerically Survey AK Simulation Ground-Water Interactions Fairbanks North Star Mosaiced DEM file based on USGS US Geological Borough - USGS 2017 LiDAR and Reston, VA 8/19/2022 2017 Survey Consultant USGS 2010 IfSAR HDR Engineering QL1_QL2 Light Detection United States and Ranging (LiDAR) data USGS Quantum Geological Survey for the Fairbanks 3DEP Rolla, MO 3/16/2018 2018 Spatial (USGS) mapping site in in Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska United States U.S. USGS National Water Information https://waterdata.usgs.g Geological Survey Geological Reston, VA 2021 2021 System: Web Interface ov/nwis (USGS) Survey 117 Page 945 of 1055 Table 32: Bibliography and References (continued) Publication Citation Publisher/ Publication Title, “Article,” Place of Date/ Date of in this FIS Issuer Volume, Number, etc. Author/Editor Publication Issuance Link United State Geological Survey in cooperation with U.S. National Hydrography Environment United States USGS Dataset HUC8's 19080305, al Protection Geological Survey Reston, VA 11/11/2022 2022 19080306, 19080307, Agency, (USGS) 19080309 USDA Forest Service, and other Federal, State and local partners USSENAT Document No. 89, Public Washington, U.S. Senate U.S. Senate E Law 90-483 D.C. 118 Page 946 of 1055Page 947 of 1055Page 948 of 1055Page 949 of 1055Page 950 of 1055 480 480 1-PERCENT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD BACKWATER FROM CHENA RIVER 475 475 470 470 PERSINGER DRIVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER CONFLUENCE WITH 465 465 CHENA SLOUGH FLOOD PROFILES 460 460 NOTE: THE 10%, 4%, AND 2%-ANNUAL NOTE: THE 10% AND 4%-ANNUAL CHANCE 455 CHANCE FLOOD PROFILES ARE TOO FLOOD PROFILES ARE TOO CLOSE TO 455 CLOSE TO THE 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE THE 2%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD FLOOD ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION SEPARATELY 450 450 F 445 445 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 440 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED A B C D E AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 435 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 05P Page 951 of 1055 485 485 480 480 475 475 470 470 CHENA SLOUGH FLOOD PROFILES 465 465 NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILES IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY 460 460 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION NOTE: THE 10% AND 4%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILES ARE TOO CLOSE TO 455 THE 2%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD 455 ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY K L 450 450 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 445 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED G H I J AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 440 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,000 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 13,000 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 06P Page 952 of 1055 485 485 480 480 475 PEEDE ROAD 475 470 470 NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD CHENA SLOUGH PROFILE IS TOO CLOSE TO THE FLOOD PROFILES NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION PROFILE IS TOO CLOSE TO THE TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY 465 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION 465 TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY 460 460 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION NOTE: THE 10% AND 4%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILES ARE TOO CLOSE TO 455 THE 2%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD 455 ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY Q 450 450 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 445 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED M N O P AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 440 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 13,000 13,500 14,000 14,500 15,000 15,500 16,000 16,500 17,000 17,500 18,000 18,500 19,000 19,500 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 07P Page 953 of 1055 490 490 485 485 480 NORDALE ROAD 480 475 475 NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION CHENA SLOUGH TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY FLOOD PROFILES 470 470 465 465 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION 460 460 V 455 455 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 450 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED R S T U AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 445 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 19,500 20,000 20,500 21,000 21,500 22,000 22,500 23,000 23,500 24,000 24,500 25,000 25,500 26,000 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 08P Page 954 of 1055 495 495 490 490 485 485 480 480 NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS TOO CLOSE TO THE CHENA SLOUGH 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION FLOOD PROFILES TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY 475 475 470 470 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION 465 465 AA 460 460 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 455 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED W X Y Z AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 450 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 26,000 26,500 27,000 27,500 28,000 28,500 29,000 29,500 30,000 30,500 31,000 31,500 32,000 32,500 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 09P Page 955 of 1055 495 495 490 490 REPP ROAD 485 485 CLYDESDALE DRIVE 480 480 NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILES IS TOO CLOSE TO THE PROFILES IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION CHENA SLOUGH 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY FLOOD PROFILES TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY 475 475 470 470 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION 465 465 AH 460 460 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 455 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED AB AC AD AE AF AG AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 450 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 32,500 33,000 33,500 34,000 34,500 35,000 35,500 36,000 36,500 37,000 37,500 38,000 38,500 39,000 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 10P Page 956 of 1055 500 500 495 495 490 490 485 485 CHENA SLOUGH NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD FLOOD PROFILES PROFILES IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 480 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION 480 TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY 475 475 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION 470 470 AN AO 465 465 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 460 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED AI AJ AK AL AM AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 455 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 39,000 39,500 40,000 40,500 41,000 41,500 42,000 42,500 43,000 43,500 44,000 44,500 45,000 45,500 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 11P Page 957 of 1055 505 505 500 500 PLACK ROAD 495 AIRWAY DRIVE 495 490 490 CHENA SLOUGH NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD FLOOD PROFILES PROFILES IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 485 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION 485 TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY 480 480 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION 475 475 AT AU 470 470 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 465 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED AP AQ AR AS AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 460 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 45,500 46,000 46,500 47,000 47,500 48,000 48,500 49,000 49,500 50,000 50,500 51,000 51,500 52,000 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 12P Page 958 of 1055 510 510 505 505 500 HURST ROAD 500 OUTSIDE HURST BOULEVARD 495 495 CHENA SLOUGH FLOOD PROFILES 490 490 NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILES IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY 485 485 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION 480 480 BA BB 475 475 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 470 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED AV AW AX AY AZ AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 465 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 52,000 52,500 53,000 53,500 54,000 54,500 55,000 55,500 56,000 56,500 57,000 57,500 58,000 58,500 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 13P Page 959 of 1055 515 515 510 510 505 MISSION ROAD 505 500 500 CHENA SLOUGH FLOOD PROFILES 495 495 NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 490 PROFILES IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 490 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION 485 485 BH 480 480 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 475 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED BC BD BE BF BG AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 470 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 58,500 59,000 59,500 60,000 60,500 61,000 61,500 62,000 62,500 63,000 63,500 64,000 64,500 65,000 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 14P Page 960 of 1055 515 515 510 510 505 DAWSON ROAD 505 SPRUCE BRANCH DRIVE 500 500 NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILES IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION CHENA SLOUGH TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY FLOOD PROFILES 495 495 490 490 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION 485 485 BN BO 480 480 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 475 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED BI BJ BK BL BM AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 470 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 65,000 65,500 66,000 66,500 67,000 67,500 68,000 68,500 69,000 69,500 70,000 70,500 71,000 71,500 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 15P Page 961 of 1055 525 525 520 520 515 LAURANCE ROAD 515 MISTLETOE DRIVE MISTLETOE DRIVE RICHARDSON HIGHWAY 510 510 CHENA SLOUGH FLOOD PROFILES 505 505 NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILES IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 500 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION 500 TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION 495 495 BU 490 490 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 485 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED BP BQ BR BS BT AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 480 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 71,500 72,000 72,500 73,000 73,500 74,000 74,500 75,000 75,500 76,000 76,500 77,000 77,500 78,000 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 16P Page 962 of 1055 530 530 525 525 ALASKA RAILROAD RICHARDSON HIGHWAY 520 520 ALASKA RAILROAD 515 515 CHENA SLOUGH FLOOD PROFILES 510 510 NOTE: THE 0.2%-ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILES IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 1%-ANNUAL-CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY 505 505 ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88) IN FEET (NAVD ELEVATION 500 500 CB 495 495 LEGEND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 490 4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD 10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD STREAM BED BV BW BX BY BZ CA AND INCORPORATED AREAS CROSS SECTION LOCATION 485 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 78,000 78,500 79,000 79,500 80,000 80,500 81,000 81,500 82,000 82,500 83,000 83,500 84,000 84,500 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, AK STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH CHENA RIVER 17P Page 963 of 1055Page 964 of 1055Page 965 of 1055Page 966 of 1055 Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor's Office Natural Resources Development land@fnsb.gov Main: (907) 459-1241 Fax: (907) 459-1122 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Crass Presiding Officer Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly THROUGH: Grier Hopkins, Borough Mayor FROM: Daniel Welch Manager Natural Resources Development Division DATE: August 27, 2026 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2026-13. An Ordinance Rezoning Tract B Of Contentment Estates And A Portion Of Tract A Of Graceland Subdivision From Rural Estates (RE-2) To Outdoor Recreational (OR) Or Other Appropriate Zone; And Rezoning Tract B And A Portion Of Tract A Of Graceland Subdivision From Rural And Agricultural (RA-20) To Outdoor Recreational (OR) Or Other Appropriate Zone (Located North Of Isberg Rd And East Of Cripple Creek Rd) The attached ordinance will rezone approximately 339.349 acres. It will rezone approximately 259.466 acres from Rural Estates (RE-2) to Outdoor Recreational (OR), including approximately 219.466 acres within Contentment Estates and approximately 40 acres within Graceland Subdivision. It will also rezone approximately 79.883 acres from Rural and Agricultural (RA-20) to OR, all within Graceland Subdivision, including 29.953 acres owned by the State of Alaska. The State Dept. of Natural Resources supports the rezone. The rezone includes approximately 309.396 acres donated to the FNSB by the Interior Alaska Land Trust to expand the Isberg Recreational Area. The land is encumbered and uses are limited to protect conservation purposes, while still allowing recreational uses consistent with the rest of the Recreational Area. The Land Trust supports the rezone. The RE-2 and RA-20 zoning districts do not allow most uses typically associated with public Physical: 907 Terminal St. Fairbanks, AK 99701 Website: fnsb.gov Mailing: PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707 Page 967 of 1055 Page 2 of 2 parks and the OR zoning district is more appropriate for the expanded Isberg Recreational Area. We support the ordinance and urge you to refer it to the FNSB Planning Commission for a recommendation. The Department of Community Planning will provide a staff report at that time. Thank you. Page 968 of 1055 1 By: Grier Hopkins, Mayor 2 Referred to Planning 3 Commission: June 11, 2026 4 Introduced: August 27, 2026 5 6 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH 7 8 ORDINANCE NO. 2026 – 13 9 10 AN ORDINANCE REZONING TRACT B OF CONTENTMENT ESTATES AND A PORTION OF 11 TRACT A OF GRACELAND SUBDIVISION FROM RURAL ESTATES (RE-2) TO OUTDOOR 12 RECREATIONAL (OR) OR OTHER APPROPRIATE ZONE; AND REZONING TRACT B AND 13 A PORTION OF TRACT A OF GRACELAND SUBDIVISION FROM RURAL AND 14 AGRICULTURAL (RA-20) TO OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL (OR) OR OTHER APPROPRIATE 15 ZONE (LOCATED NORTH OF ISBERG RD AND EAST OF CRIPPLE CREEK RD) 16 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Assembly of the Fairbanks 18 North Star Borough: 19 20 Section 1. Classification. This ordinance is not of a general and permanent 21 nature and shall not be codified. 22 23 Section 2. The following described property is rezoned from Rural Estates 24 (RE-2) to Outdoor Recreational (OR): 25 Tract B of Contentment Estates and the southern approximately 40 acres of Tract 26 A of Graceland Subdivision, as shown in Exhibit A. 27 28 Section 3. The following described property is rezoned from Rural and 29 Agricultural (RA-20) to Outdoor Recreational (OR): 30 Tract B and the northern approximately 50 acres of Tract A of Graceland 31 Subdivision, as shown in Exhibit A. 32 AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RZ2026-006 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 1 of 2 Page 969 of 1055 33 Section 4. The official zoning map is amended in accordance with this 34 ordinance. 35 36 Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective at 5:00 p.m. on the 37 first Borough business day following its adoption. 38 39 ADOPTED THE DAY OF 2026. 40 41 42 43 Scott Crass 44 Presiding Officer 45 46 47 ATTEST: APPROVED: 48 49 50 April Trickey, MMC Jill S. Dolan 51 Borough Clerk Borough Attorney AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska RZ2026-006 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 2 of 2 Page 970 of 1055Page 971 of 1055Page 972 of 1055 Fairbanks North Star Borough COMMUNITY PLANNING Division of Planning and Zoning planning@fnsb.gov Main: (907) 459-1260 STAFF REPORT TO: Fairbanks North Star Borough Planning Commission THROUGH: Kellen Spillman, Director for KS Department of Community Planning FROM: Sarah Bingham, Planner III Department of Community Planning DATE: July 28, 2026 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2026-13 / RZ2026-006: A request to rezone approximately 339.3 acres for Tract B, Contentment Estates; and Tracts A and B, Graceland Subdivision from Rural Estate (RE-2) and Rural and Agricultural (RA-20) to Outdoor Recreation (OR) for property located south of the Parks Highway and north of Isberg Road. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This request is to rezone three Borough-owned tracts totaling approximately 339.3 acres, highlighted in Figure 1. This area is undeveloped and accessible via trail. The intent is to encourage recreational uses consistent with the Isberg Recreation Area such as trail development and year-round motorized use on developed trails. Staff supports this rezone because the Outdoor Recreation zone is appropriate for this area and will reduce potential land use conflicts. This rezone is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and Figure 1 2023 Pictometry (subject lots shown in pink) Physical: 907 Terminal St. Fairbanks, AK 99701 Website: fnsb.gov Mailing: PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707 Page 973 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Page 2 of 11 promotes public health, safety and welfare. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Property Information Applicant FNSB Natural Resources Development Division Property Owner FNSB Rezone Area approximately 339 acres Existing Zoning Rural Estate (RE-2) and Rural and Agricultural (RA-20) Existing Land Use Undeveloped Proposed Zoning Outdoor Recreation (OR) Comprehensive Plan Outskirt Area & Perimeter Area Preferred Residential Flood Zone X and A flood zone Code Violations None on file Adjacent Zoning/Land Use North General Commercial (GC) & RE-2/Residential General Use (GU-1)/Undeveloped South OR/Undeveloped East RE-2/Residential West OR/Undeveloped Public Services Water & Sewer None Electricity Golden Valley Electrical Association Police Alaska State Troopers Fire Ester and Chena Goldstream Volunteer Fire Departments Transportation Access Remote: Isberg Recreation Area or Chena Ridge F.E. Ditch Trails Road Type Trail Maintenance None Authority AADT NA Zoning History March 28, 1968 Zoned Unrestricted Use (UU) via Ord No. 67-34 November 25, 1970 Section 19 zoned Rural Estate via Ord No.70-42 September 10, 1981 E1/2 NE1/4 Section 19 zoned General Agriculture (GA-20) April 19, 1988 GA-20 changed to RA-20 via Ord No. 88-010 Page 974 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Page 3 of 11 February 26, 1998 Tracts A & B Graceland created via Plat #98-16 December 16, 2024 Tract B Contentment Estates created via Plat #2024-85 Existing RE-2 Zoning Standards1 Permitted Uses Single-family detached dwelling; two-family attached dwelling; guest house; bed and breakfast homestay/residence; child care home/group home; domestic livestock; home occupations; market garden; accessory uses Conditional Uses Airports, heliports, aircraft landing fields; animal hospitals; cemeteries; child care center; clubs and lodges; communication towers; neighborhood community garden; hostels; group homes; minor kennel; mobile homes; organized trail facilities; professional offices; public utility and service uses; residential cluster development; school buildings; trade/technical/vocational school Minimum Lot Size 80,000 square feet Setback Front yard: 35 feet Requirement Side yard: 25 feet Rear yard: 25 feet Existing RA-20 Zoning Standards2 Permitted Uses Agribusiness; agricultural uses; Airports, heliports, aircraft landing fields; animal hospitals/boarding/breeding facilities; archery range; banquet halls; bed and breakfast homestay/residence; blacksmith shop; child care home/group home; church buildings; commercial agriculture; commercial and domestic livestock; commercial outdoor recreation; communication towers; golf courses; grange hall; guest house; home occupations; kennels; marijuana cultivation facilities indoor/outdoor limited; mobile homes; public utility and service uses; riding academies/stables; noncommercial sawmills; indoor shooting range; outdoor permitted shooting range; single- family detached dwelling; two-family attached dwelling; storage of fertilizer, farm supplies and common livestock husbandry; trade/technical/vocational school; accessory uses Conditional Uses Cemeteries; child care center; clubs and lodges; commercial outdoor recreation with buildings exceeding a total of 5,000 sq ft of gross floor area; group homes; hostels; marijuana 1 FSNBC 18.36 2 FSNBC 18.28 Page 975 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Page 4 of 11 cultivation facilities indoor/outdoor unlimited; mobile home parks; neighborhood dumpster; public dumping sites; organized trail facility; professional offices; residential cluster development; commercial sawmills; school buildings; outdoor shooting range; stadiums/arenas/fairgrounds; wildlife and animal parks Minimum Lot Size 800,000 square feet Setback Front yard: 35 feet Requirement Side yard: 10 feet Rear yard: 10 feet Proposed OR Zoning Standards3 Permitted Uses Archery range; Campgrounds; minor communications tower; neighborhood/regional community garden; corrals and hitching posts; dock/deck/boat launch; golf courses; outdoor ice rinks; nature centers; organized trail facilities; playgrounds; recreational open space; indoor shooting range; outdoor permitted shooting range; skiing facilities; accessory uses Conditional Uses Commercial outdoor recreation; major communication tower; convention/exhibition/civic centers/auditoriums; domestic livestock; public recreation building; community center; public utility and service uses; schools; outdoor shooting range; stadiums/arenas/fairgrounds/indoor ice rinks; travel trailer parks; watersports facilities; zoos and animal parks Minimum Lot Size None Setback Front yard: 50 feet Requirement Side yard: 25 feet Rear yard: 25 feet III. REZONE REQUEST DESCRIPTION The FNSB Assembly referred Ordinance No. 2026-13 to the Planning Commission for their recommendation on June 11, 2026.4 Per the applicant’s narrative, the rezone area was donated to the FNSB in 2025 by the Interior Alaska Land Trust for the purpose of doubling the size of the existing Isberg Recreation Area. The rezone area has been “encumbered and uses are limited to protect conservation purposes and wetlands, while still allowing 3 FSNBC 18.20 4 Attachment 1: Ordinance No. 2026-13 Page 976 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Page 5 of 11 recreational uses… such as trail development and year-round motorized use on developed trails.”5 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS Figure 2 Zoning Map Zoning and Land Use: The subject area has been zoned RE-2 since 1970 and RA-20 since 1981. When the Graceland subdivision was created in 1998, Tract A consisted of two primary zoning designations, RE-2 and RA-20. The RE-2 zone “is intended for low density residential development and other compatible uses where community sewer and water systems are unavailable.”6 RE-2 permits a maximum of two dwelling units on a lot as long as both meet the setback requirements. 5 Attachment 2: Applicant Memo 6 FNSBC 18.36.010 Page 977 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Page 6 of 11 The RA-20 zone is “intended for agricultural uses of land for very low density residential development… where community sewer and water systems are unavailable.”7 A maximum of two principal buildings is permitted on one lot as long as both buildings meet the setback requirements. The OR zone “is intended to protect outdoor recreational uses on public lands.”8 There is no minimum lot size in the OR zone. The FNSB does not show that any buildings have been constructed within the rezone area, so any new buildings would need to be at least 50 feet from all lot lines. Northern portions of the rezone area are located within the “A” flood zone, which requires a floodplain permit before any development occurs within the “A” flood zone.9 The existing trails within the rezone area have been constructed within the “X” flood zone, which permits new uses like trails and trailheads to develop without meeting the FNSB Floodplain Management Regulations in FNSBC 15.04. Comprehensive Plan Designations: The subject area is designated as Outskirt and Perimeter in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP).10 The Outskirt area is described as an “area generally within a 20 to 30 minute travel time of urban destination” while the Perimeter designation is described as an “area generally within a 10-20 minute travel time of urban destinations.”11 Both the Outskirt and Perimeter designations are intended primarily for open space and residential uses. The applicant’s request to rezone the subject area to OR is supported by the following comprehensive plan goals: RCP Environmental Goal 3: To protect natural systems Strategy 7: Consider land development toward areas where natural systems will be least adversely affected. Action A: Define and identify areas with severe natural hazards • Zone properties in accordance with natural hazards such as soil types, slope and aspect, incidence of flooding, and presence of ice-rich permafrost and other items detrimental to development The 2021 Land Suitability Map12 identifies the rezone area as being some of the least capable land to develop due to the large portion of wetlands13 and the steep slope14 of the rezone area. While residential and other types of development are still possible within the areas shown as Least Capable, the Interior Alaska Land Trust encumbered the rezone 7 FNSBC 18.28.010 8 FNSBC 18.20 9 Attachment 7: Flood Zone Map 10 Attachment 8: Regional Comprehensive Plan Map 11 RCP page 15 12 Attachment 9: Land Suitability Map 13 Attachment 10: Wetlands Map 14 Attachment 11: 50-Foot Contour Map Page 978 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Page 7 of 11 area before donating it to the FNSB to protect conservation purposes and wetlands from more impactful uses. Strategy 9: Support efforts to protect waterways. Action A: Identify and preserve areas under best stewardship practices • Provide opportunities to enjoy the outdoors Rezoning the subject lots to OR would allow further development of existing organized trail facilities within the rezone area since they are a permitted use in the OR zone with minimal permitting requirements. Changes to permitted uses, like creating a new trail or trailhead, are reviewed administratively by Community Planning staff for compliance with the zoning code. Organized trail facilities are conditional uses in both the RE-2 and RA- 20 zones, which require public hearings for new or substantial changes to the Isberg Recreation Area. Strategy 10: Borough public land and open spaces Action A: Identify and provide public borough land for open spaces that can maintain, enhance and conserve outdoor recreational opportunities, wildlife, marginal lands, drainage areas, linkage between existing public open spaces along transportation corridors between borough communities, tourism opportunities. The Isberg Recreation Area southwest of the rezone area was rezoned to the OR zone in 2005 and has provided the surrounding residences proximity to an open space to develop trails. Rezoning the subject area to also be OR expands the amount of land designated for open space to be conserved while continuing to permit very low impact uses like trail development. RCP Community and Human Resources Goal 1: To have services and facilities that enrich the quality of life for all residents Strategy 3: Provide opportunities for community recreation. Action C: Maintain a Recreational Trail Plan that addresses: • Multiple-use trails The applicant’s narrative describes how the Trails Advisory Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission passed motions in 2025 to accept and retain the donation of the subject area to further expand the Isberg Recreation Area. The FNSB Assembly adopted the Isberg Recreation Area Master Plan as a long tern term planning guide in 2007, which prioritizes the “acquisition of lands adjacent to Isberg for expansion as they become available.”15 The Isberg Recreation Area is currently 400 acres and was rezoned to the OR zone on January 13, 2005. The 2023 Comprehensive Recreational Trails Plan 15 Attachment 2: FNSB Division of Natural Resources Development Memo Page 979 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Page 8 of 11 also encourages improving the access of the Isberg Recreation Area by “acquiring vacant land or access through the Graceland subdivision.”16 Transportation Analysis: The rezone area does not have direct access to a roadway, so the public would access the property from the southwest through the Isberg Recreation Area or from the northeast via the existing Chena Ridge F.E. Ditch Trails. The FNSB Transportation Planner17 stated that there are no road plan connections that would impact this rezone and that all the roads surrounding the rezone area are access restricted roads, which would not permit any new driveways without a variance. V. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION CRITERIA [FNSBC 18.104.020 (C)] (1) The proposed rezone conforms to the comprehensive plan. The OR zoning district is consistent with the Outskirt and Perimeter designations and is supported by the Comprehensive Plan’s Environment Goals 2 and 3, and Community and Human Resources Goal 1. (2) The proposed rezone conforms to the public health, safety and welfare. The change from RE-2 and RA-20 to OR protects public health, safety and welfare by protecting environmentally sensitive areas, increasing the side and rear yard setbacks for future buildings to buffer uses as well as permitting more trails and trailheads throughout the Isberg Recreation Area to improve the access for the surrounding residential uses. VI. SPOT ZONE ANALYSIS The Alaska Supreme Court has stated that the classic definition of spot zoning is, “the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners.” Determining whether a rezone constitutes spot zoning depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P.2d 1015, Alaska, 1996 the court stated it would consider the following three factors in determining the constitutionality of spot zoning: 1. The consistency of the amendment with the comprehensive plan; The subject area is designated as Outskirt Area and Perimeter Area Preferred Residential. OR is compatible with these designations, as an organized trail facility is a permitted use. This rezone is supported by the Comprehensive Plan’s Land 16 2023 Comprehensive Recreation Trails Plan, page 75 17 Attachment 6: Agency Comments Page 980 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Page 9 of 11 Use designations as well as Environment Goals 2 and 3; and Community and Human Resources Goal 1. 2. The benefits and detriments of the amendment to the owners, adjacent landowners, and community; and This rezone will benefit adjacent owners and the community by permitting the Isberg Recreation Area to expand its trail network and preserve more open space for the public to enjoy recreationally. 3. The size of the area rezoned While case law does not give an exact size for making a spot zone determination, it does provide guidance that parcels less than 3 acres are almost always a spot zone and parcels over 13 acres are almost always found not to be a spot zone. The total acreage of this rezone well exceeds this general guidance threshold and would expand the existing OR zone to the southwest of the rezone area to more than 700 acres. In addition, the OR zone does not permit uses that are drastically different from the surrounding area. VIII. PUBLIC NOTICE The Department of Community Planning mailed 130 Dear Property Owner (DPO) letters on June 24, 2026. As of publishing, a few phone calls have been received inquiring about this rezone and no written responses have been received about this rezone. Since there are no public roads adjacent to the rezone area, the Director of Community Planning approved two offsite locations, adjacent to Cripple Creek and Isberg Roads, for the public hearing notification signs. The applicant posted two public hearing notice signs on July 7, 2026, meeting the notice requirements, per FNSBC 18.104.010(C)(3). VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS Community Planning contacted the following agencies for comments. No objections or concerns have been received from these agencies. See Attachment 6 for their full comments. a. FNSB Long Range Planner b. FNSB Transportation Planner c. Chena Goldstream Fire Department d. Ester Fire Department e. Alaska State Troopers Page 981 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Page 10 of 11 IX. SITE VISIT A site visit was conducted and photos were taken on July 8, 2026.18 X. RECOMMENDATION Based on the staff analysis above, the Department of Community Planning recommends approval of this rezone request to Outdoor Recreation. XI. FINDINGS OF FACT The Department of Community Planning further recommends adoption of the staff report and the following five (5) Findings of Fact in support of APPROVAL of the rezone. 1. This rezone is consistent with the FNSB Regional Comprehensive Plan land use designations of Outskirt and Perimeter. Both list open space as a primary use. 2. The recommended rezone to OR is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations and existing adjacent development than the existing RE-2 and RA-20 zoning. This rezone will permit trail and trailhead development with a zoning permit rather than with a conditional use permit. 3. The rezone conforms to the following FNSB Regional Comprehensive Plan goals: Land Use Goal 2: To continue public land use and sales programs. Strategy 4: Plan for, designate, and retain sufficient lands for future public purposes prior to the sales of public lands. Environmental Goal 3: To protect natural systems Strategy 7: Consider land development toward areas where natural systems will be least adversely affected. Action A: Define and identify areas with severe natural hazards • Zone properties in accordance with natural hazards such as soil types, slope and aspect, incidence of flooding, and presence of ice-rich permafrost and other items detrimental to development Strategy 9: Support efforts to protect waterways. Action A: Identify and preserve areas under best stewardship practices • Provide opportunities to enjoy the outdoors Strategy 10: Borough public land and open spaces 18 Attachment 5: Site Visit Pictures Page 982 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Page 11 of 11 Action A: Identify and provide public borough land for open spaces that can maintain, enhance and conserve outdoor recreational opportunities, wildlife, marginal lands, drainage areas, linkage between existing public open spaces along transportation corridors between borough communities, tourism opportunities. Community and Human Resources Goal 1: To have services and facilities that enrich the quality of life for all residents Strategy 3: Provide opportunities for community recreation. Action C: Maintain a Recreational Trail Plan that addresses: • Multiple-use trails 4. The rezone conforms to the public health, safety and welfare because: a. The OR zone is intended to protect outdoor recreational uses on public lands. 5. The proposed rezone is likely not a spot zone because: a. The area to be rezoned is approximately 339 acres in size and is adjacent to the Isberg Recreation Area, which is also zoned OR. b. The proposed rezone provides benefits to the community as well as future and adjacent property owners. c. The land is encumbered and uses are limited to protect conservation purposes and wetlands and allow trail development and year-round motorized use on developed trails. DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION: I move to recommend approval of RZ2026-006, a request to rezone Tract B, Contentment Estates and Tracts A and B, Graceland Subdivision from Rural Estate (RE-2) and Rural and Agricultural (RA-20) to Outdoor Recreation (OR), adopting the staff report and five findings of fact in support of this recommendation. Attachment 1: Ordinance No. 2026-13 Attachment 2: FNSB Division of Natural Resources Development Memo Attachment 3: Sign posting affidavit and pictures Attachment 4: Alternate sign posting approval Attachment 5: Site visit photos Attachment 6: Agency comments Attachment 7: Flood Zone Map Attachment 8: Regional Comprehensive Plan Map Attachment 9: Land Suitability Map Attachment 10: Wetlands Map Attachment 11: 50-Foot Contour Map Page 983 of 1055 1 By: Grier Hopkins, Mayor 2 Referred to Planning 3 Commission: June 11, 2026 4 5 6 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH 7 8 ORDINANCE NO. 2026 – 13 9 10 AN ORDINANCE REZONING TRACT B OF CONTENTMENT ESTATES AND A PORTION OF 11 TRACT A OF GRACELAND SUBDIVISION FROM RURAL ESTATES (RE-2) TO OUTDOOR 12 RECREATIONAL (OR) OR OTHER APPROPRIATE ZONE; AND REZONING TRACT B AND 13 A PORTION OF TRACT A OF GRACELAND SUBDIVISION FROM RURAL AND 14 AGRICULTURAL (RA-20) TO OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL (OR) OR OTHER APPROPRIATE 15 ZONE (LOCATED NORTH OF ISBERG RD AND EAST OF CRIPPLE CREEK RD) 16 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Assembly of the Fairbanks 18 North Star Borough: 19 20 Section 1. Classification. This ordinance is not of a general and permanent 21 nature and shall not be codified. 22 23 Section 2. The following described property is rezoned from Rural Estates 24 (RE-2) to Outdoor Recreational (OR): 25 Tract B of Contentment Estates and the southern approximately 40 acres of Tract 26 A of Graceland Subdivision, as shown in Exhibit A. 27 28 Section 3. The following described property is rezoned from Rural and 29 Agricultural (RA-20) to Outdoor Recreational (OR): 30 Tract B and the northern approximately 50 acres of Tract A of Graceland 31 Subdivision, as shown in Exhibit A. 32 AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 1 of 2 Page 985 of 1055 33 Section 4. The official zoning map is amended in accordance with this 34 ordinance. 35 36 Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective at 5:00 p.m. on the 37 first Borough business day following its adoption. 38 39 ADOPTED THE __ DAY OF ____ 2026. 40 41 42 43 Scott Crass 44 Presiding Officer 45 46 47 ATTEST: 48 49 50 April Trickey, MMC Jill S. Dolan 51 Borough Clerk Borough Attorney AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XX Page 2 of 2 Page 986 of 1055Exhibit A: Extent of Rezone Proposed Rezone Division of Natural Resources Development i-------l----G U-1---.h:===r---, 19 OR RE-2toOR RE-2 Miles Page 987 of 1055 Attachment 2 Page 988 of 1055Page 989 of 1055Page 990 of 1055Page 991 of 1055Attachment 3 Page 992 of 1055Page 993 of 1055 Attachment 5: Site Visit Pictures Intersection of Cripple Creek Rd and Isberg Rd Page 996 of 1055 Attachment 5: Site Visit Pictures Top: Parking area adjacent to Isberg Road for Eastside Upland Trail Bottom: Isberg Recreation Area Trailhead accessing Oboe Ct Page 997 of 1055 Attachment 5: Site Visit Pictures Staff noted very few driveways accessing Isberg Rd. Page 998 of 1055 Attachment 5: Site Visit Pictures Top: The only visible residence adjacent to Isberg Road Bottom: One of the driveways along Cripple Creek Road Page 999 of 1055 Attachment 7 Page 1003 of 1055 Attachment 8 Page 1004 of 1055 Attachment 9 Page 1005 of 1055 Attachment 10 Page 1006 of 1055 Attachment 11 Page 1007 of 1055FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH Ord 2026-13 / RZ2026-006 Requesting to rezone approximately 339 acres, Tract B Contentment Estates & Tracts A and B, Graceland, from RE-2 & RA-20 to OR Planning Commission Meeting July 28, 2026 1 Page 1008 of 1055 Old Nenana Hwy Rezone Area N 2 Page 1009 of 1055 Ord 2026-13 / RZ2026-006 A request to rezone appx 339.3 acres from RE-2 & RA-20 to OR “for future use as a public park” 3 Page 1010 of 1055 • Isberg Recreation Area rezoned to OR in 2004. • Isberg Recreation Area Master Plan adopted in 2007 • Subject rezone area accepted for future park use in 2025 • Trails Advisory Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission passed motions supporting the retention of the land donation to expand the Isberg Recreation Area 4 Page 1011 of 1055 Current Zoning Districts • GC • OR • RE-2 • RE-4 • RA-20 • GU-1 5 Page 1012 of 1055 Rural Estate (RE-2) Permitted Uses Single-family detached dwelling; two-family attached dwelling; guest house; bed and breakfast homestay/residence; child care home/group home; domestic livestock; home occupations; market garden; accessory uses Conditional Uses Airports, heliports, aircraft landing fields; animal hospitals; cemeteries; child care center; clubs and lodges; communication towers; neighborhood community garden; hostels; group homes; minor kennel; mobile homes; organized trail facilities; professional offices; public utility and service uses; residential cluster development; school buildings; trade/technical/vocational school Minimum Lot Size 80,000 square feet Setbacks Front yard: 35 feet/ Side & Rear yard: 25 feet Page 1013 of 1055 6 Rural & Agricultural (RA-20) Permitted Uses Agribusiness; Agricultural uses; Airports, heliports, aircraft landing fields; animal hospitals/boarding/breeding facilities; archery range; banquet halls; bed and breakfast homestay/residence; blacksmith shop; child care home/group home; church buildings; commercial agriculture; commercial and domestic livestock; commercial outdoor recreation; communication towers; golf courses; grange hall; guest house; kennels; marijuana cultivation facilities indoor/outdoor limited; mobile homes; public utility and service uses; riding academies/stables; noncommercial sawmills; indoor shooting range; outdoor permitted shooting range; single-family detached dwelling; two-family attached dwelling; storage of fertilizer, farm supplies and common livestock husbandry; trade/technical/vocational school; accessory uses Conditional Use Cemeteries; child care center; clubs and lodges; commercial outdoor recreation with buildings exceeding a total of 5,000 sq ft of gross floor area; group homes; hostels; marijuana cultivation facilities indoor/outdoor unlimited; mobile home parks; neighborhood dumpster; public dumping sites; organized trail facility; professional offices; residential cluster development; commercial sawmills; school buildings; outdoor shooting range; stadiums/arenas/fairgrounds; wildlife and animal parks Minimum Lot Size 800,000 square feet Setbacks Front yard: 35 feet / SidePage 1014 & of Rear1055 yard: 10 feet 7 Outdoor Recreation (OR) Permitted Uses Archery range; Campgrounds; minor communications tower; neighborhood/regional community garden; corrals and hitching posts; dock/deck/boat launch; golf courses; outdoor ice rinks; nature centers; organized trail facilities; playgrounds; recreational open space; indoor shooting range; outdoor permitted shooting range; skiing facilities; accessory uses Conditional Uses Commercial outdoor recreation; major communication tower; convention/exhibition/civic centers/auditoriums; domestic livestock; public recreation building; community center; public utility and service uses; schools; outdoor shooting range; stadiums/arenas/fairgrounds/indoor ice rinks; travel trailer parks; watersports facilities; zoos and animal parks Minimum Lot Size None Setbacks Front yard: 50 feet / Side & Rear yard: 25 feet Page 1015 of 1055 8 Title 18 Rezone Approval Criteria Conforms to the Conforms to Does not Regional the public create a spot Comprehensive health, safety, zone Plan & welfare Page 1016 of 1055 9 Regional Comprehensive / Trails Plan Land Use Designations • Perimeter Area • Outskirt Area Existing Trails Proposed Trails 10 Page 1017 of 1055 RCP Land Use Goals Land Use Goal 2: To continue public land use and sales programs. Strategy 4: Plan for, designate, and retain sufficient lands for future public purposes prior to the sales of public lands. Community and Human Resources Goal 1: To have services and facilities that enrich the quality of life for all residents Strategy 3: Provide opportunities for community recreation. Action C: Maintain a Recreational Trail Plan that addresses: • Multiple-use trails 11 Page 1018 of 1055 Fish & Wildlife Wetlands 2024 Map Wetlands • Freshwater Pond • Freshwater Forested/ Shrub Wetland • Freshwater Emergent Wetland 12 Page 1019 of 1055RCP Environmental Goal 3: To protect natural systems Strategy 7: Consider land development toward areas where natural systems will be least adversely affected. Action A: Define and identify areas with severe natural hazards • Zone properties in accordance with natural hazards such as soil types, slope and aspect, incidence of flooding, and presence of ice-rich permafrost and 13 other items detrimentalPage 1020 of 1055 to development RCP Land Use Goals Environmental Goal 3: To protect natural systems Strategy 9: Support efforts to protect waterways. Action A: Identify and preserve areas under best stewardship practices • Provide opportunities to enjoy the outdoors Strategy 10: Borough public land and open spaces Action A: Identify and provide public borough land for open spaces that can maintain, enhance and conserve outdoor recreational opportunities, wildlife, marginal lands, drainage areas, linkage between existing public open spaces along transportation corridors between borough 14 communities, tourism opportunitiesPage 1021 of 1055 Title 18 Rezone Approval Criteria Conforms to the Conforms to Does not Regional the public create a spot Comprehensive health, safety, zone Plan & welfare • Outlaying Area • RCP Land Use Goals 2 & 4 • SBRAP Land Use Goal 2 Page 1022 of 1055 15 Public Hearing Notices • 130 letters mailed on 6/24/26 • 2 signs posted on 7/7/26 - shown as 16 Page 1023 of 1055 Summary of Public Comments • General inquiries about the application • Supportive of more open space for outdoor recreation uses • One concern from an adjacent property about the potential for trespassers on their property. 17 Page 1024 of 1055Site Visit Pictures ^Cripple Creek & Isberg Rd intersection < Isberg Rd 18 Page 1025 of 1055Isberg Rd 19 Page 1026 of 1055Isberg Rd 20 Page 1027 of 1055 Title 18 Rezone Approval Criteria Conforms to the Conforms to Does not Regional the public create a spot Comprehensive health, safety, zone Plan & welfare • Outskirt & Perimeter • Adjacent to & Area accessed from • RCP Land Use Goal 2 Isberg Rec • RCP Environmental Area Goal 3 • Allows for • RCP Community & further trail Human Resources development Goal 1 for recreation Page 1028 of 1055 21 Spot Zone Analysis 1. Consistency of the amendment with the Comprehensive Plan Consistent with the Outskirt and Perimeter Area RCP Land Use Goal 2, Environmental Goal 3, & Community and Human Resources Goal 1 2. The benefits and detriments of the amendment to the owners, adjacent landowners, and community Protects outdoor recreational uses on public lands 3. The size of the area rezoned Rezone area is approximately 339 acres Page 1029 of 1055 22 Title 18 Rezone Approval Criteria Conforms to the Conforms to the Does not Regional public health, create a spot Comprehensive safety, & Plan welfare zone • Outskirt & Perimeter • Adjacent to & • Restrictions Area accessed from to protect • RCP Land Use Goal 2 Isberg Rec conservation • RCP Environmental Area purposes Goal 3 • Allows for • RCP Community & further trail • Adjacent to Human Resources development Goal 1 for recreation OR zone Page 1030 of 1055 23 Draft Motion I move to recommend approval of RZ2026-006, a request to rezone Tract B, Contentment Estates and Tracts A and B, Graceland Subdivision from Rural Estate (RE-2) and Rural and Agricultural (RA-20) to Outdoor Recreation (OR), adopting the staff report and five findings of fact in support of this recommendation. 24 Page 1031 of 1055 N 25 Questions? Page 1032 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Findings of Fact 1. This rezone is consistent with the FNSB Regional Comprehensive Plan land use designations of Outskirt and Perimeter. Both list open space as a primary use. 2. The recommended rezone to OR is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations and existing adjacent development than the existing RE-2 and RA-20 zoning. This rezone will permit trail and trailhead development with a zoning permit rather than with a conditional use permit. 26 Page 1033 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Findings of Fact 3. The rezone conforms to the following FNSB Regional Comprehensive Plan goals: Land Use Goal 2: To continue public land use and sales programs. Strategy 4: Plan for, designate, and retain sufficient lands for future public purposes prior to the sales of public lands. Environmental Goal 3: To protect natural systems Strategy 7: Consider land development toward areas where natural systems will be least adversely affected. Action A: Define and identify areas with severe natural hazards • Zone properties in accordance with natural hazards such as soil types, slope and aspect, incidence of flooding, and presence of ice-rich permafrost and other items detrimental to development 27 Page 1034 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Findings of Fact Environmental Goal 3: To protect natural systems Strategy 9: Support efforts to protect waterways. Action A: Identify and preserve areas under best stewardship practices Provide opportunities to enjoy the outdoors Strategy 10: Borough public land and open spaces Action A: Identify and provide public borough land for open spaces that can maintain, enhance and conserve outdoor recreational opportunities, wildlife, marginal lands, drainage areas, linkage between existing public open spaces along transportation corridors between borough communities, tourism opportunities. 28 Page 1035 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Findings of Fact Community and Human Resources Goal 1: To have services and facilities that enrich the quality of life for all residents Strategy 3: Provide opportunities for community recreation. Action C: Maintain a Recreational Trail Plan that addresses: • Multiple-use trails 29 Page 1036 of 1055 RZ2026-006 Findings of Fact 4. The rezone conforms to the public health, safety and welfare because: a. The OR zone is intended to protect outdoor recreational uses on public lands. 5. The proposed rezone is likely not a spot zone because: a. The area to be rezoned is approximately 339 acres in size and is adjacent to the Isberg Recreation Area, which is also zoned OR. b. The proposed rezone provides benefits to the community as well as future and adjacent property owners. c. The land is encumbered and uses are limited to protect conservation purposes and wetlands and allow trail development and year-round motorized use on developed trails. 30 Page 1037 of 1055 Land Suitability Index (2021) • Least Capable • Less Capable • Average Capability • More Capable • Most Capability 31 Page 1038 of 1055Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2026 Page 1039 of 1055QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS - continued 2. There are adequate existing energy and transportation facilities serving the site, and other public services are available to serve the proposed conditional use. a. The subject lot is served by the North Star Volunteer Fire Department for emergency fire response. b. The subject property has adequate power supply, as it is served by GVEA. c. As conditioned, the primary and existing guest house water and wastewater systems will be maintained in accordance with ADEC regulations. d. The subject property is served by the Alaska State Troopers for law enforcement. 3. As conditioned, the proposed conditional use protects public health, safety, and welfare because the property complies with Title 18 standards for the RR zone (FNSBC 18.40) as well as with other applicable land use related laws. a. Noise, traffic and other negative impacts from an existing second single- family residence are not expected to exceed those impacts that are generated by the various types of residential development currently existing in the neighborhood. b. A vegetative buffer will maintain the aesthetics of the area and limit other impacts to the neighborhood. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS G.1. Ordinance No. 2026-13 An Ordinance Rezoning Tract B Of Contentment Estates And A Portion Of Tract A Of Graceland Subdivision From Rural Estates (RE-2) To Outdoor Recreational (OR) Or Other Appropriate Zone; And Rezoning Tract B And A Portion Of Tract A Of Graceland Subdivision From Rural And Agricultural (RA-20) To Outdoor Recreational (OR) Or Other Appropriate Zone (Located North Of Isberg Rd And East Of Cripple Creek Rd). (Sponsor: Mayor Hopkins) (RZ2026-006) (Staff Contact: Sarah Bingham) Sarah Bingham, Planner III, presented the staff report. Based on the staff analysis, Community Planning recommended approval. Daniel Welch, Sponsor’s Designee, had no questions for staff. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH July 28, 2026 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 Page 1040 of 1055PUBLIC HEARINGS AND LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS – continued Commissioners questioned staff on the following:  Recreation vehicle accessibility and allowance; it was answered, some lots may be big enough in size to accommodate trailers and there is no signage prohibiting motorized vehicles from the trails.  Existence of wetlands and potential damage from four wheelers; it was answered, Isberg Recreation Area has motorized and non-motorized trails with some seasonal restrictions in areas.  Restricted uses; it was answered, no agricultural or residential uses.  Zones regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers; it was answered, yes wetlands are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers.  Wetland regulations as it relates to 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency); it was answered, generally the Borough does not regulate wetlands. Daniel Welch, Sponsor’s Designee, presented information on coordinating with the Interior Land Trust who had catalyzed this request and collaboration with the Army Corps of Engineers. Commissioners had no questions for the sponsor’s designee. Chair McKinley called for public testimony, there being none, public testimony was closed. MUEHLING, moved to recommend to the Borough Seconded by CAMPBELL Assembly adoption of RZ2026-006, a request to rezone Tract B, Contentment Estates and Tracts A and B, Graceland Subdivision from Rural Estate (RE-2) and Rural and Agricultural (RA-20) to Outdoor Recreation (OR), adopting the staff report and five findings of fact in support of this recommendation. Discussion ensued on the following:  Protections for public recreational areas.  Access to multi-use trails.  Public health and safety.  Interior Land Trust donation of 300 acres to the Isberg Recreation Area. MUEHLING, moved to amend to replace RZ2026-006 Seconded by CAMPBELL with Ordinance No. 2026-13. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH July 28, 2026 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 Page 1041 of 1055PUBLIC HEARINGS AND LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS – continued Chair McKinley ruled a vote on the amendment would carry the main motion. VOTE ON MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOROUGH ASSEMBLY ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2026-13, A REQUEST TO REZONE TRACT B, CONTENTMENT ESTATES AND TRACTS A AND B, GRACELAND SUBDIVISION FROM RURAL ESTATE (RE-2) AND RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL (RA-20) TO OUTDOOR RECREATION (OR), ADOPTING THE STAFF REPORT AND FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF THIS RECOMMENDATION, AS AMENDED. Yeses: Smart, Ringstad, Muehling, Rodriguez, Corbett, Stepovich, Campbell, McKinley Noes: None MOTION CARRIED 8 Yeses, 0 Noes FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This rezone is consistent with the FNSB Regional Comprehensive Plan land use designations of Outskirt and Perimeter. Both list open space as a primary use. 2. The recommended rezone to OR is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations and existing adjacent development than the existing RE-2 and RA-20 zoning. This rezone will permit trail and trailhead development with a zoning permit rather than with a conditional use permit. 3. The rezone conforms to the following FNSB Regional Comprehensive Plan goals: Land Use Goal 2: To continue public land use and sales programs. Strategy 4: Plan for, designate, and retain sufficient lands for future public purposes prior to the sales of public lands. Environmental Goal 3: To protect natural systems Strategy 7: Consider land development toward areas where natural systems will be least adversely affected. Action A: Define and identify areas with severe natural hazards  Zone properties in accordance with natural hazards such as soil types, slope and aspect, incidence of flooding, and presence of ice-rich permafrost and other items detrimental to development FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH July 28, 2026 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 Page 1042 of 1055PUBLIC HEARINGS AND LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS – continued Strategy 9: Support efforts to protect waterways. Action A: Identify and preserve areas under best stewardship practices  Provide opportunities to enjoy the outdoors Strategy 10: Borough public land and open spaces Action A: Identify and provide public borough land for open spaces that can maintain, enhance and conserve outdoor recreational opportunities, wildlife, marginal lands, drainage areas, linkage between existing public open spaces along transportation corridors between borough communities, tourism opportunities. Community and Human Resources Goal 1: To have services and facilities that enrich the quality of life for all residents Strategy 3: Provide opportunities for community recreation. Action C: Maintain a Recreational Trail Plan that addresses:  Multiple-use trails 4. The rezone conforms to the public health, safety and welfare because: a. The OR zone is intended to protect outdoor recreational uses on public lands. 5. The proposed rezone is likely not a spot zone because: a. The area to be rezoned is approximately 339 acres in size and is adjacent to the Isberg Recreation Area, which is also zoned OR. b. The proposed rezone provides benefits to the community as well as future and adjacent property owners. c. The land is encumbered and uses are limited to protect conservation purposes and wetlands and allow trail development and year-round motorized use on developed trails. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH July 28, 2026 DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 Page 1043 of 1055 April 7, 2026 Honorable Grier Hopkins Mayor of Fairbanks North Star Borough PO Box 71267 Sent via email: bryan.sehmel@fnsb.gov Fairbanks, AK 99707 Re: Rezone Application for Tract B of Graceland Subdivision Mayor Hopkins, I am writing on behalf of the Northern Region Office within the Division of Mining, Land & Water (DMLW), Department of Natural Resources (DNR). As the Northern Regional Manager for general state lands within the Fairbanks North Star Borough (Borough), I am providing DNR landowner support for the proposed rezone of Tract B of Graceland Subdivision. Our understanding is that the Borough has accepted a land donation from the Interior Alaska Land Trust of Tract A of Graceland Subdivision, a 90-acre parcel. Tract A lies immediately south of the state-owned parcel, Tract B. The Borough is pursuing a rezone of Tract A from Rural and Agricultural to Outdoor Recreation to be consistent with the adjacent Isberg Recreation Area. The state parcel, Tract B, is also currently zoned Rural and Agricultural. Because Tract B is to remain in state ownership, and because the parcel is bisected by trail easements and Cripple Creek, DNR has no plans for future residential land sales. To maintain consistency with surrounding public recreation lands, DNR supports rezoning Tract B to Outdoor Recreation. This letter serves as DNR’s concurrence with the rezone of Tract A within Graceland Subdivision, Plat No. 98-16, to Outdoor Recreation. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (907) 451-2728 or at dianna.leinberger@alaska.gov. Sincerely, Dianna Leinberger Northern Regional Manager cc: Tim Shilling, Land Conveyances Section, DMLW, DNR Page 1044 of 1055PO BOX 84169 Fairbanks, AK 99708 www.interioraklandtrust.org Mayor Grier Hopkins Fairbanks North Star Borough PO Box 71267 Fairbanks, AK 99707 9 April 2026 Dear Mayor Hopkins, This letter is in support of the application to rezone two parcels in the Isberg Recreation Area from Rural Estates (RE-2) and Rural and Agricultural (RA-20) to Outdoor Recreational (OR). The Interior Alaska Land Trust donated both of these parcels to the Fairbanks North Star Borough in December 2025. Tract B of Contentment Estates is a 219.5-acre parcel that is currently zoned RE-2. Tract A of Graceland Subdivision is a 90-acre parcel that is currently zoned RE-2 (southern 40 acres) and RA-20 (northern 50 acres). Both parcels were donated to the Borough with the agreement that they would be managed as part of the Isberg Recreation Area. The rezoning to Outdoor Recreation (OR) is completely consistent with this management goal. Sincerely, Owen Guthtrie Board President Interior Alaska Land Trust Page 1045 of 1055Page 1046 of 1055RZ2026-006_Public Comments Summary of Phone Calls and Conversations 1 Date Contact Comment Notes 1 6.29.26 Cindy Dewey 907-378- Received a DPO. Concerned about general public trespassing on 7803 their property since it is adjacent to the subject parcels. No specific objections to the rezone 2 7.17.26 Caller Saw PH sign on Cripple Creek Road. In favor of more recreation land, against more residential development. 3 7.24.26 Sue McCarty requested a copy of the DPO be emailed to her, since she lost 907.488.6908 / the original letter / SB sent her an email on 7.24.26 sammccarty183@gmail.co 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page 1047 of 1055Sarah Bingham Community Planning Mayor Grier Hopkins Contentment Estates/Graceland Rezone from RE-2 & RA-20 to OR Community Planning 8/27/2026 2026-13 Sarah Bingham 1225 8.6.26 Page 1048 of 1055Page 1049 of 1055 Fairbanks North Star Borough Law Department Main: (907) 459-1318 Fax: (907) 459-1155 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Crass Presiding Officer Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly THROUGH: Grier Hopkins, Borough Mayor FROM: Jill Dolan Borough Attorney Law Department DATE: August 27, 2026 SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2026-20-1I Appropriating $1,200,000 from the General Fund Fund Balance to the Multi-Year General Subfund for Ongoing Costs Related to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Valuation Attached for your approval is a proposed ordinance amending the FY 2026-27 budget by appropriating $1,200,000 from the General Fund fund balance to the Multi-Year General Subfund for ongoing costs related to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System valuation. I urge adoption of this ordinance. Physical: 907 Terminal St. Fairbanks, AK 99701 Website: fnsb.gov Mailing: PO Box 71267, Fairbanks, AK 99707 Page 1050 of 1055 1 By: Grier Hopkins, Mayor 2 Introduced: August 27, 2026 3 4 FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH 5 6 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20-1I 7 8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FY 2026-27 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $1,200,000 9 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE TO THE MULTI-YEAR GENERAL SUBFUND 10 FOR ONGOING COSTS RELATED TO THE TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM 11 VALUATION 12 13 WHEREAS, The Fairbanks North Star Borough (Borough) must continue to 14 defend and support its assessment of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), which 15 requires ongoing litigation and related legal expenses; and 16 17 WHEREAS, The Borough previously appropriated $200,000 for the project 18 entitled "Legal – TAPS Valuation" to provide funds for hiring appropriate expertise for 19 ongoing negotiations, litigation and/or administrative appeals regarding the valuation of 20 TAPS, and the project is expected to have a continuous impact on current or future 21 budgets; and 22 23 WHEREAS, The 2026 assessed value of TAPS is currently being contested 24 in the superior court of the State of Alaska, and additional funds will be required during 25 FY 2026-27 to cover the costs of that litigation and any resulting appeal; and 26 27 WHEREAS, The Borough has retained outside counsel to represent the 28 Borough. 29 30 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Assembly of the Fairbanks 31 North Star Borough: 32 AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20- Page 1 of 3 Page 1051 of 1055 33 Section 1. Classification. This ordinance is not of a general and permanent 34 nature and shall not be codified. 35 36 Section 2. General Fund Appropriation. The FY 2026-27 budget is hereby 37 amended by appropriating $1,200,000 to the General Fund budgetary guideline entitled 38 “Contribution to Multi-Year General Subfund” and by increasing Contribution from Fund 39 Balance by a like amount. 40 41 Section 3. Multi-Year General Subfund Appropriation. The FY 2026-27 42 budget is hereby amended by appropriating $1,200,000 to the Multi-Year General 43 Subfund budgetary guideline entitled “Legal – TAPS Valuation” and by increasing 44 Contribution from General Fund by a like amount. 45 46 Section 4. Lapse of Funds. Upon completion or abandonment of the 47 project any unexpended, unencumbered funds will lapse to the General Fund fund 48 balance. 49 50 Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective at 5:00 p.m. 51 on the first Borough business day following its adoption. 52 53 ADOPTED THE _____ DAY OF __________ 2026. 54 55 56 _____________________________ 57 Scott Crass 58 Presiding Officer 59 60 61 AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20- Page 2 of 3 Page 1052 of 105562 ATTEST: APPROVED: 63 64 QS 65 April Trickey, MMC Jill S. Dolan 66 Borough Clerk Borough Attorney AMENDMENTS ARE SHOWN IN LEGISLATIVE FORMAT Text to be added is underlined Text to be deleted is [BRACKETED, CAPITALIZED] Fairbanks North Star Borough, Alaska ORDINANCE NO. 2026-20- Page 3 of 3 Page 1053 of 1055 1I Page 1055 of 1055