Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/29/2010 03:00 PM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR15 | |
| HB266 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HCR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HCR 15-BRISTOL BAY MINING STUDY
3:09:20 PM
CHAIR EDGMON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 15, Directing the Legislative
Council to contract for an assessment of environmental and
socioeconomic consequences of large-scale mineral extraction in
the Bristol Bay area watershed.
3:10:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, Alaska State Legislature,
presented a map which illustrated the district he represents-
House District 36-including eight villages in the Kodiak Island,
Lake Clark, and Iliamna area. In addition, the map showed King
Salmon, Naknek, and other areas relevant to HCR 15. The
resolution requests the National Academy of Sciences conduct a
third-party, independent study on the socioeconomic issues
resulting from a project such as the Pebble mine.
Representative Austerman has heard debate as to whether the
state has the ability to permit and manage a mine of the size
proposed; in fact, he said state departments may have the
capability. However, he said he was not debating environmental
issues or permitting processes, but only the concern for
socioeconomic issues expressed by the residents of the area. He
pointed out that the size of the potential deposit is far more
than the total of other deposits in Alaska presently under
production, and spoke of the impacts to small communities such
as roads, construction equipment, and manpower on "virgin land."
Representative Austerman stated that his concern is the social
impact that can come from "a lot of money coming in to a very
remote area." He expressed his interest in a third party, like
the National Academy of Sciences, answering and asking questions
of the mining industry regarding this project. He indicated
that his staff is prepared to answer questions on HCR 15, and
public testimony will follow.
3:16:32 PM
CHAIR EDGMON identified representatives from various
departments, and individuals, who are prepared to provide
testimony.
CHARISSE ARCE, Staff to Representative Alan Austerman, Alaska
State Legislature, re-introduced HCR 15, paraphrasing from a
prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
I am very happy to be here today to speak to you about
House Concurrent Resolution 15 which requests the
Legislative Council to contract with the National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
for an independent assessment of the environmental and
socioeconomic impacts of large-scale mineral
extraction in the Bristol Bay area watershed.
During my testimony today I will explain the purpose
of the resolution and provide a brief background on
the history of the National Research Council. I would
also like the committee to know there are several
people here and online to offer testimony today.
HCR 15 requests that the Legislative Council contract
with the National Academy of Sciences for an
independent assessment of known and probable
cumulative environmental and socioeconomic
consequences of large-scale mineral extraction in the
Bristol Bay area.
The purpose of this study is to assess critical gaps
in existing knowledge and it would serve as a tool
available to legislators, the administration, and the
public. It would help provide information on
potential risks and benefits associated with large
scale mineral development.
Essentially the study would assess the cumulative
impacts associated with the Pebble prospect itself and
examine potential future developments of this nature
in the area once infrastructure is in place.
Based on the history and reputation of the National
Academies for providing advice with high standards of
scientific and technical quality and independence, HCR
15 requests the Legislative Council to contract with
the National Research Council to conduct this study.
History of National Research Council
Part of the National Academy of Sciences
In 1863 President Lincoln signed a congressional
charter authorizing a non-governmental institution to
honor top scientists with membership and serve the
nation whenever called upon.
The NRC serves as advisers to the nation on science,
engineering, and medicine and is the only institution
charted by the U.S. Congress to do so.
Specifically the Academy of Science was created to:
"investigate, examine, experiment, and report
upon any subject of science or art" whenever called
upon to do so by any department of the government.
The mission of the NRC is to improve government
decision making and public policy, increase public
education and understanding, and promote the
acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in matters
involving science, engineering, technology, and
health.
Some important points about the National Academies are
the following.
The NRC is a non-profit and operates independently
from the government.
They do not provide services to for-profit entities
Scientists appointed to the committees serve without
pay
Studies in Alaska
Since 1990, there have been nearly 20 different
studies and reviews conducted in Alaska.
These studies range from studying the decline of the
Steller Sea Lion in Alaska waters, to assessing the
research efforts of the Oil Spill Recovery Institute,
to reviewing the research and restoration plan for the
Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Salmon fishery.
The costs for these studies have varied depending on
the scope of work. Recent projects have ranged from
$600,000 - $1.6 million. Ultimately the fiscal impact
will be up to the discretion of the Legislative
Council and the National Academies, but currently the
fiscal note attached to this resolution is $1 million.
Closing Statements
The main draw of working with the National Academy is
their commitment to independent advice. The
legislative council, as a sponsor, would have no
control over the conduct of a study once the statement
of task and budget are finalized. Study committees
gather information from many sources in public
meetings but they carry out their deliberations in
private in order to avoid political, special interest,
and sponsor influence.
An added benefit to this study will be to provide the
public with reassurance that the legislature and the
state are seeking as much information as possible to a
very complex and contentious issue. The NRC is no
stranger to conducting studies on contentious issues
which is evident through their 140 years of extensive
experience.
3:22:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked how the National Academy of Sciences
is directed to focus on the size of a project, in the absence of
a permit, and not knowing the specifics of the project.
3:22:29 PM
MS. ARCE answered that a number of specifics are known about the
project, such as the type and location of ore-bodies, the
methods of minerals extraction, and the infrastructure needed.
The requested study will cover socioeconomic aspects not covered
by the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
3:23:17 PM
CHAIR EDGMON recalled a joint meeting on this topic where the
scope of the proposed Pebble mine, in relation to the size of
other mines in the state, was illustrated. Testimony at that
meeting indicated that the recoverable ore-bodies from the all
of the existing major mines are about 600 million tons; on the
other hand, the potential scope of the Pebble mine could be 10
billion tons of recoverable ore.
3:24:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked for examples of positive and
negative socioeconomic impacts that are to be reported on by the
study.
3:24:52 PM
MS. ARCE said she did not know, but would provide an answer.
3:25:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN interjected that one positive "gold
town" effect of a large development on small communities may be
jobs for a region that otherwise survives on summertime fishing.
The negative side is the fact that so much money then creates a
number of different problems with alcohol, drugs, and social
issues, similar to what happened in Kodiak during the "boom and
bust" of the king crab industry. He pointed out that most of
the profit leaves town by boat and plane.
3:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT observed, with that in mind, the study
may report that positives and negatives are balanced.
Historically, the state has mitigated negative effects to a
community with "impact money"; in addition, some of the villages
in Southwestern Alaska could not be much worse off than they
already are. She stated that this type of socioeconomic impact
is part of Alaska's history, noting that boom and bust economies
have followed fishing, gold mining, and oil and gas industries,
and the state has learned to prepare for these scenarios.
Furthermore, a report on socioeconomic impacts is "not science,
is more of an art, [and] may scare future miners from coming to
the State of Alaska and investing...."
3:28:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stressed that the resolution is not to
determine whether the mine should be built, or whether there
should be mining in Alaska. The resolution asks for a study to
look at the impact of the mine, and its infrastructure, on eight
small communities. At some point in time the state will have to
make a determination about whether the mine should move forward
or not, and that will be the time for arguments over
environmental and permitting issues.
3:30:47 PM
CHAIR EDGMON acknowledged Representative Millett's point about
inhibiting the investment climate in Alaska; however, he
expressed his belief that the Pebble prospect has "the ability
to ... exponentially dwarf the large-scale mines that exist in
Alaska. And it's not just the size, it's where the mine is
placed, right next to the great fishery." He noted the unique
situation of the location of a world-class, non-renewable
resource next to a world-class, renewable resource vying for the
same water. Chair Edgmon encouraged the committee to ask
questions now, and take the opportunity to get a third-party
assessment.
3:32:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said it is anticipated that the
National Academy of Sciences will be asked to provide a series
of questions that the legislators should be asking the mining
industry, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the
administration, on how to protect the citizens who live in that
area. The study will reveal what the legislature should be
asking.
3:34:13 PM
CHAIR EDGMON opened public testimony.
3:34:38 PM
LORENE ENELON, President, Iliamna Natives Limited, stated that
HCR 15, concerning Pebble, is premature, given the absence of
environmental impact studies. In addition, the resolution is a
duplicate of the existing federal and state permitting
structure. She expressed her belief that the existing EIS
process is very stringent about the impact to the fisheries in
the lake area. The lake area is not part of the community
development quota (CDQ), but is considered a major spawning
ground for Iliamna Lake, and the resolution is an additional
"layer" to economic development in the area.
3:36:52 PM
ROBIN SAMUELSEN, President/CEO, Bristol Bay Economic Development
Corporation (BBEDC), stated that BBEDC supports HCR 15 because
of the magnitude and location of the mine, and the potential
social and environmental effects. Mr. Samuelsen noted he has
previously been involved with the National Academy of Sciences
and he holds it in the "highest esteem." He thanked the sponsor
for the resolution and said the money will be well spent for the
residents of Bristol Bay.
3:39:11 PM
L. TIEL SMITH, Land & Resource Manager, Bristol Bay Native
Corporation (BBNC), stated BBNC's support for HCR 15, saying
that this resolution allows for the independent assessment of
large scale mining in Bristol Bay, and the study is a prudent
and necessary investment in the state's natural resources.
Funding this study will make more information available on the
environmental and socioeconomic impacts of projects like Pebble
mine. Furthermore, BBNC supports the review because the size
and location of the Pebble prospect could have "adverse and
unquantifiable impacts on the rich salmon and other resources of
the region." Mr. Smith opined these resources are fundamental
to the interests of BBNC and its 8,600 shareholders. In
addition, an independent study will help formulate informed
opinions for the residents of Bristol Bay, the citizens of
Alaska, and legislators. He pointed out that BBNC does not
oppose responsible resource development and its benefits;
however, resource development must not threaten area resources
and economics.
3:42:07 PM
SCOTT THORSON informed the committee he was representing
himself. He expressed his belief that the study requested by
HCR 15 is an unnecessary expense due to the significant
permitting steps required of the project. At the very least,
spending money on this study is premature.
3:42:43 PM
CAROL ANN WOODY, Ph.D., Consultant, informed the committee she
was representing herself. However, she said the Environmental
Concerns Committee for the Western Division of the American
Fisheries Society will be issuing a statement in support of HCR
15. She referred to a resolution passed last year by the
Western Division of the American Fisheries Society recommending
a formal, independent, scientific review and survey of the
consequences of large scale mineral extraction in the Bristol
Bay watershed. The American Fisheries Society is aware of this
project due to its size, scale, and mine type, and because small
increases in copper levels can harm salmon, zooplankton, and
other aspects of the food chain. Dr. Woody emphasized that this
study should be conducted in a thorough, rigorous, and
scientific manner, and made available to the public, and also to
policy- and decision-makers. Furthermore, because the project
is contentious, and there is a variety of stakeholders involved,
an independent review can augment the work undertaken by the
state to assess the potential impacts of the project.
3:45:29 PM
RICK HALFORD recalled that in the past the legislature has
benefitted from spending money to study major issues. He said,
"It's not a very big issue to spend a million dollars as a first
step to the information chain, and advocates and opponents have
consistently agreed that the science is going to prove that
either this mine is possible, or it's going to prove this mine
isn't possible." Thus, getting the information is valuable to
all. He opined the core question is whether it is possible to
have the Bristol Bay fishery and the mine in near proximity, and
the National Academy of Sciences is an appropriate entity to
determine whether history, science, and experience can answer
that question. Mr. Halford stated his strong support for the
resolution, and urged that the resolution be updated with the
most current data on the size of the deposit. He said he was
speaking on his own behalf, and disclosed that he works with
Trout Unlimited, the Renewable Resources Coalition, and Nunmata
Aulukestai.
3:49:16 PM
DAN STRICKLAND, Bristol Bay Fisheries Liaison, Alaska Marine
Conservation Council (AMCC), stated his organization's strong
support for an independent review of the potential consequences
of large scale mining in the Bristol Bay region, in order to
provide sound, scientific information on the impacts of mining.
Bristol Bay salmon are one of the most ecologically and
economically important renewable resources in the state as the
salmon provide thousands of jobs and generated $129 million in
ex-vessel value last year; in fact, salmon are the economic
engine of Southwest Alaska-providing food and contributing to
the indigenous culture of the region-thus any development that
impacts the area should be rigorously studied. Mr. Strickland
concluded that Bristol Bay is one of the crown jewels of the
state, and proper stewardship must be ensured.
3:50:50 PM
ROBERTA HIGHLAND, President, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society
(KBCS), stated that KBCS strongly supports HCR 15 for its far-
reaching foresight for a responsible mining decision regarding
the proposed Pebble mine.
3:51:59 PM
ELISE WOLF, Board Member, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society
(KBCS), has heard that a permit, or application, is in place for
the disposal of 3.3 billion cubic yards of waste. She expressed
concern that the estimate of waste is inadequate for the 10.8
billion metric tons of ore projected to be recovered.
Therefore, the amount of waste and how it will be handled is in
question. In fact, one estimate is that an area one-half the
size of Anchorage may be needed to store the waste. She opined
the HCR 15 study is prudent for the purpose of determining
expectations prior to issuing permits. Her organization posed
two questions: 1. Is Lake Iliamna going to be used as a
disposal site for the waste? 2. Will a disposal site at Lake
Iliamna be applied for? She then related her personal
experience during the development of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS), and cautioned against underestimating
socioeconomic costs. Although the proposed mine does not
compare to TAPS, it places at risk the important sustainable
industry of fishing. Ms. Wolf reminded the committee that the
resources of our resource development state include fishing and
tourism. She warned against ignoring 250 years of history by
putting fishing, tourism, and the cultural and economic value of
salmon, at risk.
3:57:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she fished Bristol Bay for 20 years
and is an Alaska Native. She said she was very aware of the
impacts of a boom and bust economy on Alaska.
3:57:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ pointed out that there are many
uncertainties regarding aspects of the proposed mine.
3:58:08 PM
CHAIR EDGMON suggested asking the bill sponsor what specific
issues will be addressed by the study.
3:58:31 PM
LISA REIMER stated that she grew up in Iliamna. She said the
resolution is premature because Pebble has not submitted its
preliminary mine findings. She questioned the precedent set by
HCR 15, and noted that Native corporations are affected by many
of these resolutions in unknown ways. Ms. Reimer stated her
strong opposition to HCR 15.
4:00:24 PM
SHAWN DOCHTERMANN said that he is a lifelong fisherman presently
operating in Bristol Bay, and is speaking on his own behalf. He
stated his support for HCR 15 because it is difficult to value
the tax revenue from a mine, and its possible pollution, above
the renewable resource fishery in Bristol Bay that has kept the
region productive for 100 years. Mr. Dochtermann expressed his
desire to have the National Academy of Sciences assess the
environmental and socioeconomic consequences because a problem
with discharge that threatens the fishery will cause a "huge
socioeconomic impact." Mr. Dochtermann observed that proponents
of the mine have "pumped in" $132 million and opined that state
agencies may not be unaffected by the influence of special
interests. Therefore, an independent study from a respected
source is necessary. He related his personal experience in a
deep mine and reported that water must be pumped out and used to
process the ore.
4:03:06 PM
ALEXUS KWACHKA, Commercial Fisherman, informed the committee he
fishes commercially in Kodiak and in Bristol Bay, and is
speaking for himself. He stated his support for HCR 15 and
said, "Industrialization and fish don't mix; Atlantic salmon are
all but gone, Pacific salmon in the Northwest and in California
runs are well below the historic levels and fading fast." A
third party review is in order; in fact, it is impossible to put
enough science in front of the Pebble project. Mr. Kwachka
praised the Bristol Bay fishery and urged the committee to move
HCR 15 forward.
4:04:38 PM
TATIANA ASKOAK informed the committee she grew up in Newhalen.
She stated her support for HCR 15, as the assessment could be
used as a tool for legislators, local residents, and other
interested parties, in order to make the best educated decisions
about the studies. The importance of a third party review is
its availability to the public. Personally, she would use the
review to analyze the situation during the permitting process.
4:06:28 PM
CHAIR EDGMON closed public testimony.
4:06:37 PM
KEITH CRIDDLE, Ph.D., Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks;
Interim Director, Fisheries Division, University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF), related his experience with the National
Academy of Sciences (Academy) and offered to respond to
questions regarding the study process and the structure of the
National Research Council of the Academy.
4:08:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for an outline, and the protocol, of
the "statement of tasks."
4:08:26 PM
DR. CRIDDLE explained the statement of tasks is the critical
piece for defining how an Academy study will take place, the
terms of reference, and what questions will be addressed. The
development of the statement of tasks would begin with the
legislature's request and the Academy's response as to the
feasibility of the questions and issues. Other considerations
to discuss are the timeframe of the study and the type of
expertise needed for the members of the study committee. Dr.
Criddle observed that page 2, line 26, of the resolution appears
to be the general purpose statement.
4:10:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked whether the legislature would work
with the Academy to establish the boundaries for the study.
DR. CRIDDLE said yes. In fact, study sponsors and the Academy
staff work to produce a draft statement of tasks for submission
to members of the Academy board for comment until there is
mutual agreement.
4:11:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI pointed out that $132 million has been
spent on environmental studies by Pebble. He asked what the
Academy could provide for $1 million.
DR. CRIDDLE further explained that the scope of a report depends
on the statement of tasks, the timeframe for analysis, and the
resources made available for the study. For example, the
Academy recently completed the first part of a two-part study on
an oyster mariculture project. The first part is a short,
specific report over six to eight months, and the second part
will be lengthy, producing "a volume" of three hundred pages.
4:13:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked for the cost of the aforementioned
study.
DR. CRIDDLE estimated that a typical eighteen-month study costs
approximately $1 million. The first three months are taken to
form the general statement of the task, then the next three
months are for the Academy and the sponsor to "nail it down,"
and to solicit the members of the committee. The final twelve
months are the study period, including public hearings,
gathering information, making determinations on the specific
language of the report, and publication.
4:14:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how data on socioeconomic impacts
is quantified.
DR. CRIDDLE observed that the Academy consists of a number of
boards, some of which deal with economic and social science
issues, as well as water quality and fisheries issues. The
committee will bring together expertise to look at the science
of different types of impacts; in fact, that is an example of
one of the terms of the statement of tasks that would have to be
"fleshed out," such as employment issues, regional expenditure
patterns, or cultural impacts. He described the committee
selection process and how nominees are solicited for their
expertise, without the possibility of bias, and for their broad
diversity.
4:17:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined concrete science may not be able
to address socioeconomic and cultural impacts to a community.
4:18:45 PM
DR. CRIDDLE acknowledged that this is not his area of expertise;
however, his experience working with experts in the subjects of
human dimensions, anthropology, sociology, and rural studies
indicate that they have well-developed scientific methods for
addressing relevant questions. He assured the committee there
are "quantifiable and discreet methods for measuring different
types of social and cultural impacts."
4:19:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Dr. Criddle to provide other
reports with a similar scope of work so that she may have
confidence in the Academy's social and economic studies.
DR. CRIDDLE related that he served on a National Research
Council committee that studied the implementation of individual
fishing quotas. This committee included fisheries biologists
and experts in fisheries management, economists,
anthropologists, and legal experts. The committee's report came
out in 1999, and is a good example of a study that included
resource and science issues and a thorough discussion of
cultural effects. In addition, the project had a sister study
regarding community development quotas, which might be the best
source for comparison.
4:21:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked Dr. Criddle, "Why do you think
this resolution is getting attacked?"
DR. CRIDDLE suggested the opposition may come from taxpayers'
desire for fiscal responsibility.
4:23:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked how long the study might last, and
whether Alaskan scientists would be seated.
DR. CRIDDLE said the first step is for the Academy to decide
what board would be responsible for the project. The National
Research Council is organized into several divisions, and this
would fall under the Division of Earth and Life Studies, which
includes boards on ocean studies, polar research, water science
and technology, earth sciences, and resources. Furthermore,
studies are sometimes jointly administered by boards. In
response to the first question, he said the length of the study
depends on the questions asked and re-stated that a typical
study lasts 18 months. Dr. Criddle anticipated that the Academy
would welcome nominations of Alaskans to serve on the committee,
and that local representation would be solicited.
4:27:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked:
Once you had your questions, would you then anticipate
having to structure various proposals, various
responses for various sizes of a project, since we
don't have a specific project plan?
DR. CRIDDLE acknowledged the specific size of the study is an
important issue. Committee reports are a good way to determine
answers to questions, or can help to identify questions that
ought to be asked; for example, a recent committee report
summarized the current state of knowledge regarding an issue,
and highlighted the areas that were policy issues, and what was
unknown about the issue.
4:29:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked about the process for choosing the
scientists that would serve on the board.
DR. CRIDDLE explained that after the expertise needed is
identified by the statement of tasks, a call for nominations
would be put to the membership. Those with the expert
backgrounds desired are self-, or otherwise, nominated.
Finally, individuals are selected from the slate of nominees by
the Academy.
4:31:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked who makes the final selection.
DR. CRIDDLE responded that there are full-time employees at the
National Academy of Sciences that hold administrative positions,
and there are members who are elected to the Academy and serve
as volunteers.
4:32:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to how the Academy verifies
that there are no conflicts.
DR. CRIDDLE said that nominees are asked to declare conflicts of
interest or biases, and a nominee with a conflict of interest is
not considered. An exception may be made for a needed expert
who states a conflict, but asserts his/her ability to form
judgments without bias.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the names of the nominees
are available to the public.
DR. CRIDDLE said yes. He added that once the nominees are
identified, the names are made public and public comment is
taken prior to the final selection.
4:34:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned whether nominees disclose
whether they have been contacted by proponents on either side of
an issue.
DR. CRIDDLE surmised the subject would come up and raise a flag.
For example, there is a conflict if a nominee held a contract
with one of the parties involved, or had issued a public
statement holding a position, but taking phone calls from
representatives of different sides would not "rise to the level
of being identified as a conflict of interest."
4:35:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON advised that there is the opportunity for
conflicts of interest in an independent study. He remarked:
And if we go down this road, we want to make sure that
there's not an opportunity for someone to in advance
screen potential participants, I know that has
happened in the past and it's been very contentious
when it did happen.... Can I go on the Internet and
find out who participates in the National Academy of
Science studies today?
DR. CRIDDLE said yes. He added that one could identify who is
currently serving on a committee, who has served in the past,
and the members of the Academy. The committees are drawn from
across the spectrum of academia, government, and industry.
However, it would be difficult to identify possible nominees
before the slate is made public.
4:38:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how many members make up the pool
of potential scientists.
4:38:30 PM
DR. CRIDDLE estimated "hundreds of thousands of potential
people, [but] ones that likely have expertise that specifically
address this question is going to be a much narrower set."
4:38:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made the point that with the amount of
money at stake, it is important to have a fair hearing, and that
the potential committee members are not deluged with mailings
from one side or the other. A fair and balanced discussion will
hold up under a court challenge and public scrutiny.
4:39:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER assumed that scientists involved in
writing the environmental impact statement (EIS) would come from
the same pool as the members of the Academy.
4:40:25 PM
DR. CRIDDLE said it would be unlikely that someone directly
involved in the EIS would be eligible to serve on a committee
writing the Academy's report.
4:40:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that his question addressed what
the legislature can expect from the Academy study that is
different from the EIS process, given the participation by the
"same group."
4:41:21 PM
DR. CRIDDLE stated that similarities would depend on the
specific questions asked; for example, the EIS will not focus on
economic impacts and ancestral cultural impacts. On the other
hand, the committees will have people with similar expertise.
CHAIR EDGMON announced HCR 15 would be held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 266--Draft 2nd CS.PDF |
HFSH 3/29/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 266 |
| HB 266--SE Alaska Fishermens Alliance Opposed 3.28.2010.pdf |
HFSH 3/29/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 266 |
| HCR 15--U of W SAFS Ltr.PDF |
HFSH 3/29/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 15 |
| HCR 15--NMWT Land Trust Ltr.PDF |
HFSH 3/29/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 15 |
| HCR 15--Fogels Q and A.PDF |
HFSH 3/29/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 15 |