[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6138017,"mediaKeyId","5593726-21a0b1a6971bf93acef9a3aa9afa111a","parentId",5593726,"title","State DOT seeks to weld corroded support bases on Lathrop pedestrian overcrossing; commission raises questions but offers no formal comment","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",3056000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5593726-21a0b1a6971bf93acef9a3aa9afa111a&start=3056&end=3056","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5593726-21a0b1a6971bf93acef9a3aa9afa111a/thumbnail_3056000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6138017/Alaska/State-DOT-seeks-to-weld-corroded-support-bases-on-Lathrop-pedestrian-overcrossing-commission-raises-questions-but-offers-no-formal-comment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6138017-e589c431d7ff7b525345903fbcd64fc9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447724&Signature=YDmFjMfxnqrKvSx5l18dRbUWWCZDHGuD~6p5LTok-tjLLDwN-Y8ThFRISTEw01v06TIf5iorIGZM7oFjTG4LJSpQwwxFLC162sKZUDGjmPnGFblre9m1Hg1WTF2SrSJL6O57qAHzAIdEAI1Kx9VnuIWEIlpyqMKJRny~IbAQI8YvLLPWYaNA9gwAXoi-5tNJMphQk1LgpRy7jRqvXg6-cvoWrk3xtn96ZCfqP7-8nhTuYDoNXUaDUG3GJ6Ia2voRMfWyxoiVkb9MzEqbLdCqTEMHv5VuSj-VW8Pug0wsbNf~N3aQx0H1bitt-r5Nr-gU9J0SSrb~JlnaGP0tnE0KyA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Fairbanks North Star Borough","date","2025-07-25T00:00:00Z","article","FAIRBANKS — State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities submitted a Section 106 notification asking the Special Historic Preservation Commission to review repairs to the Lathrop pedestrian overcrossing bridge. Commission staff and members discussed the DOT proposal, public comments, and whether the bridge should be treated as historic.

Why it matters: The project involves repairs to a pedestrian overcrossing that the DOT has evaluated and determined not eligible for the National Register pending SHPO concurrence; how the commission frames its response could affect future eligibility and any later requests to alter or remove the structure.

Commission staff member Katie presented DOT materials, reading the agency’s inspection findings: “Inspection of the pedestrian overcrossing bridge determined that the original bolts at the vertical roof support bases are no longer structurally sound, and they're too corroded to be safely removed without damaging the structure further.” The DOT’s proposed fix is to secure the steel vertical roof-support bases with welded joints using handheld welding equipment; the DOT said no heavy equipment or staging outside the structure would be required and anticipated no ground disturbance.

A member of the public, Samantha Kennett of North Pole, said she and some residents who do not drive rely on that covered crossing and asked that the bridge be repaired and preserved. “I just wanna make sure that the the bridge is gonna be staying and being repaired and maybe painted and going to live on,” Kennett said during citizen comments.

Commissioner Josh expressed a substantive concern about the DOT’s eligibility analysis. “I just would like to see a little bit more of the logic why it's not eligible being fleshed out a little bit more,” he said, noting the historic context described in the DOT materials and suggesting the bridge might have local associative value as one of fewer remaining covered pedestrian crossings in the city’s mid-20th-century buildout.

Staff recommended no formal comment; several commissioners discussed an alternative approach in which staff would summarize the commission’s discussion for DOT and direct DOT to the meeting recording for full context. Chair Recker noted that if the DOT repair is purely maintenance and does not use federal funds, Section 106 ordinarily would not apply; however, DOT had submitted the notice. Commissioners agreed there was not a need to submit a formal comment at the special meeting, though several asked that DOT provide clearer reasoning for a not-eligible finding for the record and that staff include the commission’s concerns in an informal summary.

Clarifying details from the meeting: DOT described the structure as originally built in the 1970s; the original plan called for plexiglass sides but chain-link was installed over time, in part because plexiglass was repeatedly vandalized; DOT intends to weld the corroded support base bolts on both sides of the covered walkway using handheld welding; DOT’s letter states a finding of “no historic properties within the APE” and “no historic properties negatively affected,” pending SHPO concurrence; staff recommended no official comment and commissioners accepted an informal summary plus reference to the meeting recording.

Ending: The commission did not file a formal comment at the July 25 special meeting but asked staff to document the discussion and to point DOT to the meeting record; SHPO concurrence remains pending and the commission noted it could revisit the matter at a future meeting if additional information is submitted.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Fairbanks North Star Borough Special Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - July 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposed welding corroded vertical roof-support base bolts on the Lathrop pedestrian overcrossing in Fairbanks; the Historic Preservation Commission asked for more justification of a 'not eligible' finding but ultimately offered no formal comment pending SHPO concurrence.","taxTitle","Fairbanks North Star (Borough), Alaska","taxId",5063,"location","Alaska","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6138022,"Eielson Air Force Base proposes demolishing 18 structures as part of munitions consolidation; SHPO concurrence pending",1784,1266000,3050000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5593726-21a0b1a6971bf93acef9a3aa9afa111a&start=1266&end=3050","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5593726-21a0b1a6971bf93acef9a3aa9afa111a/thumbnail_1266000.jpg","/articles/6138022/Alaska/Eielson-Air-Force-Base-proposes-demolishing-18-structures-as-part-of-munitions-consolidation-SHPO-concurrence-pending","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6138022-dc2d1d0a10c896961ebf02a28405e779/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447724&Signature=kCotYJ98yCqY9gKHFsVZPPCH5gIA9sNyUyq84mnfFxfewDZKeBsYPoPhCKRSMEtwiVk4qkmJ4DHo9MmB0gdvCbPDkaCzHO4m-VIVm46htkvI5255WB5~o6COmZTkT7ZvR8WjsVdKXvUSQa0TZTK0DIDhtR6OEGN4cULsc9Kq60EOj3bmyN9D1UQHZeYZvhxsC4Z7Y3U4I3x0s5JbyhY4dTAiII~Tf4fNPi-MinVr0cw40Bdyw6ol6DMvAvG2u-1CHvwlSzvQpGRjIprLHyoFxK-x8oi~VyDp5GlLJ3H0ivgcSV0TWFvi~1Q34B3FUh9mpBfYj4Q78jp3GyL0RNrL4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska — Eielson Air Force Base staff told the Fairbanks Special Historic Preservation Commission on July 25 that a proposed consolidation of munitions storage would include demolition of 18 structures in the Engineer Hill historic district and construction of new facilities outside the Quarry Hill Munitions District.

Why it matters: The proposal affects buildings that the Air Force identified as National Register–eligible and contributing to a historic district, triggers Section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act, and will require mitigation or a memorandum of agreement (MOA) if adverse effects are found.

The Air Force’s representative, Brooks Lawler, said the project would demolish 18 structures on Engineer Hill, including 13 the Air Force has identified as National Register–eligible and contributing. “The project is proposing to demolish 18 structures,” Lawler said. He told the commission the demolition would be part of a wider effort to consolidate munitions in a single, modernized storage area to reduce transportation and improve storage conditions.

Lawler said four structures were determined not eligible for the National Register and one building previously tagged for reevaluation in 2005 remains proposed as ineligible for now. Five of the National Register–eligible buildings are wooden guard towers; the Air Force said demolition of those towers would produce adverse effects and must be mitigated. Seven additional buildings have already been mitigated under an Ammunition Storage Program Comment developed for DoD components in February 2006, Lawler said.

The Air Force has submitted an archaeological survey for the area of potential effect for the new construction, which Lawler described as roughly 37 acres with about half composed of wetlands. He described difficulties conducting shovel tests because of frozen ground and discontinuous permafrost; the tests completed were negative. Lawler also said a 1996 survey had found deep deposits and paleontological remains near a road cut south of Quarry Hill, and for that reason the Air Force proposes construction monitoring for deeply buried paleontological deposits in addition to the archaeological survey.

Lawler said the Air Force expects to send a draft MOA to SHPO and federally recognized tribes and to the Yukon-Tanana Historic Society; he anticipated an early draft would be available on July 31 and hoped the commission would be able to review a draft by its September meeting.

Commission discussion and questions focused on the scope of documentation and prior mitigation. Commissioner John Poirier asked whether Eielson was one of three bases selected in a broader Air Force report that identified representative ammunition-storage resources; Lawler said he would verify whether Eielson was included. Poirier and other commissioners asked for the older program documentation referenced by the Air Force; Lawler said the program comment and supporting reports exist and that he would provide them.

Commissioners asked why a building listed for reevaluation in 2005 was still being treated as ineligible; Lawler said SHPO and prior reviewers have repeatedly found that the buildings have not gained additional historic significance since their earlier determinations and that Cold War–era context remains the primary significance period for these resources. He noted SHPO concurrence on final determinations is still outstanding.

No formal recommendation or vote on the project was taken at the special meeting. Chair Recker and Commissioner Poirier noted the Air Force had left the comment period open and invited further input; the commission may consider comments at its September meeting or at a possible special meeting in August. Lawler said the environmental assessment incorporating Section 106 findings remains in draft.

Clarifying details from the meeting include: the Air Force’s count of 18 structures proposed for demolition on Engineer Hill, of which 13 are listed as National Register–eligible/contributing; five are wooden guard towers; seven buildings are cited as previously mitigated under the Ammunition Storage Program Comment (Feb. 2006); one building had been recommended for reevaluation in 2005 and the Air Force currently treats it as not having gained significance; the new-construction survey area is described as approximately 37 acres with roughly 50% wetlands; archaeological shovel tests were negative where completed but frozen ground limited some testing; the Air Force proposes construction monitoring for potential deeply buried paleontological deposits.

What the commission asked the Air Force to provide: copies of the Air Force report(s) documenting prior mitigation under the Ammunition Storage Program Comment, the draft MOA when available, and verification of whether Eielson was selected in the Air Force’s representative-installation selection. The Air Force representative said he would provide those documents and follow up with SHPO concurrence when available.

Background: The Air Force described the Engineer Hill area as a historic district eligible for the National Register; proposed demolition of contributing buildings triggers the Section 106 consultation process. The Air Force said it is using the Section 106 process to inform an environmental assessment that remains in draft. The commission’s next regular meeting is scheduled for September; the Air Force invited further input if the commission develops comments after the 30-day window.

Ending: The commission took no formal action at the July 25 special meeting and left the record open to receive documents and comments ahead of a possible September discussion. The Air Force indicated it would provide the draft MOA and supporting reports when available.","Eielson Air Force Base told the Special Historic Preservation Commission it plans to consolidate munitions storage, proposing demolition of 18 structures in the Engineer Hill historic district, with mitigation and a memorandum of agreement under Section 106 still in development and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurrence pending.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

State DOT seeks to weld corroded support bases on Lathrop pedestrian overcrossing; commission raises questions but offers no formal comment

Eielson Air Force Base proposes demolishing 18 structures as part of munitions consolidation; SHPO concurrence pending