Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eielson Programmatic Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eielson Air Force Base seeks streamlined Section 106 review under revised programmatic agreement; commission remains consulting party
Summary
Eielson AFB presented a revised programmatic agreement to streamline Section 106 reviews and ongoing maintenance of historic buildings; the Borough Historic Preservation Commission is a consulting party, not a signatory, and commissioners asked questions about access, emergency stipulations and professional qualifications.
Fairbanks — The Historic Preservation Commission on June 3 reviewed a revised draft programmatic agreement from Eielson Air Force Base that would streamline section 106 National Historic Preservation Act reviews and set procedures for ongoing maintenance of historic buildings on the base.
Brooks Lawler, cultural resource program manager for the 354th Fighter Wing at Eielson AFB, said he brought “a revised draft of the programmatic agreement for ongoing maintenance of historic buildings and streamlined section 106 review” and invited consulting parties to a follow‑up meeting to discuss revisions. Lawler said the major changes from the prior draft included a reorganization of the whereas clauses and specific identification of tenant units such as the 168th Air National Guard.
Commissioner Josh Poirier, who represents the commission in consultations with the base, reminded the commission that the programmatic agreement’s signatories are the Air Force, the state and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; the borough commission is a consulting party with the right to review and comment but not to sign the agreement. “The Borough Historic Preservation Commission is just one of the consulting parties,” Poirier said.
Commissioners raised questions about several stipulations in the draft. They sought clarification on how the base would treat areas considered unsafe or restricted from survey because of security, and whether emergency provisions (which can accelerate review timelines) might apply broadly. Lawler and other participants said restricted areas are those disturbed by prior impacts or that require special clearance and that emergency provisions would only apply under certain federally defined emergencies; discussion noted that accelerated review timelines (for example, seven‑day reviews) could make public comment and adequate notice difficult for outside consulting parties.
Commissioners also asked that work performed under the agreement meet Secretary of the Interior professional qualification standards and discussed whether contract designers and contractors should be required to meet those standards; the commission noted prior recommendations on similar projects such as the SS Nenana work.
Lawler said he would host a virtual or in‑person meeting (proposed for June 5) to solicit further comments from signatories and consulting parties and to address technical questions. Several commissioners and local historic organizations indicated they plan to attend either in person or virtually.
The commission made no formal vote on the agreement at the meeting; staff provided the SHPO concurrence letters elsewhere in the agenda and offered no objection recommendation to two recent concurrence letters related to base projects.
