Commission asks for clearer outreach, flexible comment periods on proposed Eielson AFB programmatic agreement

Staff presented a draft programmatic agreement the Eielson Air Force Base proposed with the State Historic Preservation Office to streamline Section 106 review on routine maintenance and no‑adverse‑effect undertakings.

Staff described the draft’s structure and explained that undertakings listed in Exhibit A would be handled internally by the base and reported annually to consulting parties. The agreement would require an annual report — to be provided by Jan. 31 each year — summarizing the prior year’s activities covered under the programmatic agreement, and it would remain in effect until February of an unspecified year subject to reevaluation for extension or changes.

Several commissioners raised outreach and notice concerns. Commissioner John Poirier said he had expected to be the commission’s contact and said he was not informed of a March 31 meeting with base staff; he asked staff to ensure he and other interested commissioners receive meeting notices. Staff said they would follow up with Brooks Lawler (Eielson) and confirm inclusive notice for future meetings. Commissioner Martin Gutowski said he had attended the initial meeting as a representative of the Tanana‑Yukon Historical Society and would check with other society contacts about whether they received notice.

Commissioners discussed the commission’s formal role: staff clarified the draft is an agreement between the base and the State Historic Preservation Office and that the commission would participate as a consulting party that can comment, not as a signatory with authority to dictate agreement terms. Melissa noted the Fort Wainwright agreement lists this commission as a concurring party (not full signatory), and staff said the Eielson draft’s format is similar.

Staff recommended the commission request flexibility in comment periods so reviews can accommodate the commission’s schedule; several commissioners supported conveying that preference to Eielson staff. No formal motion was taken; staff said they would ask the base to allow extended comment windows to align with commission meetings and would follow up to ensure commission members are included on future meeting notices.

Commissioners were also briefed on the review process: if a proposed undertaking falls outside Exhibit A or results in a finding of adverse effect, the base would conduct standard Section 106 consultation and provide the commission with project descriptions, maps of the area of potential effect, and photographs for review.

The commission did not take formal action on the draft agreement at this meeting; the comment period remains open and staff will report additional comments to the base as they are prepared.