Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/21/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB189 | |
| HB146 | |
| HJR21 | |
| HB89 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 189 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 189-GASLINE DEV. TEAM/CORP. MEMBERS/INFO
1:05:30 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 189, "An Act relating to the Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation and creating an exception to the public
records statute for information provided to the Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation; amending the composition of the Joint
In-State Gasline Development Team; and providing for an
effective date."
1:05:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature,
characterized HB 189 as cleanup language that addresses issues
that arose after the passage of House Bill 369 in 2010.
1:07:03 PM
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that it became necessary to make some
changes to the membership of the Joint In-State Gasline
Development Team. Although John Binkley, chair of the Alaska
Railroad Corporation (ARRC), was replaced by Linda Leary this
year, he remains a member of the ARRC Board. However, in order
to allow Mr. Binkley to continue to work on the development team
as a representative of ARRC, HB 189 added the following bold and
underlined language "chair of the board of directors of the
Alaska Railroad Corporation or the chair's designee". The
legislation also changed the makeup of the development team by
removing the following language: "the chief executive officer
of the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority". Therefore,
Harold Heinze would be removed from the development team. He
explained that there were potential conflicts of interest with
regard to Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority's (ANGDA)
bids on the TransCanada line. The other cleanup requested by
the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) was in regard
to confidentiality. He reminded members that the language in
House Bill 369 referring to confidentiality disappeared from the
legislation in the Senate. Therefore, in order to ensure that
confidentiality is maintained when information is passed between
AGDC and state agencies or private companies, language
pertaining to confidentiality is necessary.
1:10:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the status of ANGDA.
MR. WRIGHT answered that ANGDA is still in existence and charged
with the tasks set forth in House Bill 369. Although he was
unsure what exactly ANGDA is working on, he presumed that it was
still working on a bullet line and some work for electrical
utilities.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT interjected his understanding that ANGDA
is still working on the deliverability of propane in Western
Alaska.
1:11:13 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that HB 189 doesn't
address the operation of ANGDA as the legislation simply removes
the chief executive officer of ANGDA from the development team.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT answered that is correct.
1:11:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether ANGDA continues to pursue the
concept of an all-Alaska line.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said that he couldn't say exactly on
what ANGDA is working. However, he recalled that ANGDA placed
bids for the throughput in the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act
(AGIA) and Denali processes. He further recalled that ANGDA was
reviewing options with TransCanada as well.
1:12:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to whether ANGDA is taking a
position on HB 189.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said that he hasn't had a conversation
with Mr. Heinze on that point.
1:13:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that most boards and
commissions the legislature establishes consist of an odd number
of members. She asked whether the sponsor would anticipate any
problems with having an even number of members.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said he does not believe there will be a
problem, but he offered that Dan Fauske with the development
team might have a better idea.
1:13:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to why the AGDC member that
is being lost isn't being replaced with someone else.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related that with ANGDA placing a bid
for throughput for the other projects there is concern that
there would be the opportunity for confidential information to
not be confidential.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that she agreed with the
elimination of Mr. Heinze from the development team because she
agreed with the problem it presented. However, she reiterated
her question regarding why he wasn't replaced with someone else
in the state.
MR. WRIGHT offered that the project is in such an advanced state
that bringing on someone new would hinder the operation,
especially since the report is due July 2011.
1:15:37 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the new
confidentiality language on page 4, lines 16-18, would protect
proprietary, privileged, or trade secret information, although
the language on page 4, lines 12-13, already seems to cover
that. He expressed the desire to ensure that the
confidentiality language isn't so broad that it includes more
than would be required to maintain proprietary, privileged, or
trade secret information that's already covered in the
legislation.
MR. WRIGHT recalled that there was discussion [with regard to
the confidentiality language] between AGDC and the drafter
regarding how to make the language conform. He deferred to
Legislative Legal Services representatives for further response.
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the committee packet includes a
memorandum dated March 8, 2011, from Legislative Legal Services
that addresses some of the aforementioned issues.
1:18:25 PM
DAN FAUSKE, CEO/Executive Director, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation, President, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation,
explained that [AGDC] is asking firms and other state agencies
for information, and therefore wants to feel confident that it
won't be compromised such that under a Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request the information would have to be released.
There is no desire to be in a position in which the information
is "so tightly held" that [AGDC] is in a box. He recalled that
his first few weeks working at AHFC were spent hammering out the
details of the ENSTAR Natural Gas Company agreement. Therefore,
he said he could provide first-hand knowledge of entering a
situation prior to a company providing proprietary information.
He opined that it's much easier to start with a confidentiality
agreement so that there aren't arguments about what is and isn't
confidential. Mr. Fauske informed the committee that process is
at the stage during which much of the [confidential] information
is going to be requested in order to be able to finalize the
engineering, environmental, and air quality data. He emphasized
the need to avoid getting derailed because AGDC can't obtain
information from a company or agency without a [confidentiality
agreement].
1:21:48 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that he didn't want to prevent the
aforementioned, but he opined that the state must keep itself
out of a situation in which legislators couldn't obtain enough
information because of the confidentiality in the legislation
which was the case with AGIA.
MR. FAUSKE said that he didn't want to be in a situation in
which AGDC provides the legislature a report with
recommendations based on confidential information that it can't
share with the legislators. He explained that AGDC will vet the
information and the [new] confidentiality language provides the
freedom to gather the data and do a complete and thorough
report. Mr. Fauske said that he didn't envision any subsidiary
creation that would result in the owners of the project, the
legislature, being privy to the data. Still, that's not to say
that there wouldn't be information in a report that would be
proprietary to [a company].
1:23:52 PM
KEN VASSAR, Attorney at Law (Of Counsel), Birch Horton Bittner &
Cherot, explained that in preparing the report, AGDC is required
to gather information, which it could perform via field research
and hiring the necessary staff to do so. However, the
aforementioned would be costly and time consuming. Furthermore,
AGDC is aiming to prepare the report in a fairly short timeframe
and thus the most efficient way in which to achieve the
aforementioned is to gather information from those who have
already gathered it. By and large most of the information has
been gathered by private companies, which have no obligation to
disclose any of their information. In fact, private companies
are averse to disclosing information because they have spent a
great deal of money to gather the information and don't want
competitors to have access to it, whether that access is
directly or via an agency that's susceptible to a public records
information request. However, he informed the committee that
each of the confidentiality agreements that are planned will
include a provision that expressly provides that the information
is being gathered and planned to be used for the purposes of
AGDC in order to prepare the report and present it to the
legislature. Therefore, AGDC will be free to manipulate and use
the information for the purposes of putting together the report.
1:26:27 PM
MR. VASSAR acknowledged that the existing public records act
includes a provision for proprietary information and trade
secrets. Although that provision is helpful, there isn't a
bright white line drawn between what is proprietary and what is
trade secret in every instance. Even if every document received
from a private company could be reviewed, analyzed, and verified
as to whether it's proprietary, trade secret, or not and immune
from disclosure requests, someone else could reach the opinion
that the information isn't proprietary and should be disclosed.
Such a situation would likely result in a time-consuming process
of negotiating, litigating, and possibly arbitrating that point.
The aforementioned would be a timing problem for AGDC. By
allowing AGDC to enter into a confidentiality agreement with a
private corporation and including a provision in that agreement
that maintains the status quo of the information provided to
AGDC, it ensures that the private company doesn't risk its
investment in the information and makes it easier to obtain the
information from the private company.
1:28:46 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that he's trying to understand the
breadth of the confidentiality agreement. He then highlighted
the concern in the March 8th legal opinion that the exception
will mislead the entity that everything it provides to AGDC
would remain confidential. Co-Chair Seaton said that the
legislation doesn't specify what can be determined as
confidential information for which AGDC can sign a
confidentiality agreement with the companies. The language of
the legislation seems to allow AGDC to utilize a confidentiality
agreement with any entity on any information to exclude the
information from becoming public.
1:30:35 PM
LISA MORITZ KIRSCH, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), explained that the paragraph in her March 8th
memorandum that relates the concern about misleading the
corporation providing the information is largely an explanation
as to why she drafted this provision in a different way than the
original request. To some degree, the provision adding that it
will be an exception when it's covered by a confidentiality
agreement does minimize that particular concern.
1:31:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON opined that the aforementioned only minimizes
the concern if there are some sideboards on the confidentiality
agreement that AGDC signs with the parties. If AGDC is allowed
to utilize a blanket confidentiality agreement on all material,
he surmised that the concern would remain or it would exclude
all of the information.
MS. KIRSCH related her understanding that Co-Chair Seaton is
saying that the concern that a confidentiality agreement could
still be overly broad remains. However, she didn't believe
that's the intention here. That concern does remain when there
is language that says: "a confidentiality agreement" without
any limitations.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if Ms. Kirsch has any suggested language
that could be inserted to restrict the confidentiality agreement
to the appropriate materials without being too broad.
MS. KIRSCH opined that would be better answered by those looking
at the information because they would be more familiar with the
nature of the information they desire to protect and the reasons
to do so.
1:33:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON highlighted the language on page 4,
lines 16-18, which basically says that there must be a
confidentiality agreement between the information provider and
AGDC. However, she imagined that AGDC will have to place some
sideboards in the confidentiality agreement so it can provide
information to legislators to make decisions.
MR. FAUSKE, drawing from his experience with the ENSTAR Natural
Gas Company agreement, explained that without a confidentiality
agreement one would request information from a company and then
have to wait until the company decides whether it's confidential
or not. The aforementioned process takes weeks. The goal, he
opined, is to expedite the process such that an entity that
wants to do business with [AGDC and the state] has faith that
the information it provides won't be divulged without some prior
agreement or stipulation that it won't be divulged without their
permission because the information being requested is the
private company's information. Mr. Fauske said that AGDC isn't
going to find itself in a position that it doesn't divulge
anything because it's AGDC's responsibility to divulge as much
as possible since AGDC will be providing a recommendation to the
legislature with regard to how to proceed.
1:35:28 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON posed a scenario in which a confidentiality
agreement is made in which no information provided by the
private company is divulged and that all information exchanged
and discussions are held private and confidential, such that
it's not a public record and not available to the legislature.
He asked if that's the type of confidentiality agreement being
considered in HB 189.
MR. VASSAR answered, "Partly." The confidentiality agreement
would certainly specify that the data being provided by the
company to AGDC is confidential and won't be disclosed by AGDC.
Another part of the confidentiality agreement will be an express
recognition by the private company that the reason for gathering
that data together is to prepare a report for the legislature
and the information from the private company will be part of the
report. Therefore, the private company would give the
information to AGDC, but AGDC can't bundle it into a 3-ring
binder and give it to legislators rather it can sort through the
information that's valuable to the project. Mr. Vassar pointed
out that each of the companies have interest in various projects
and the details of those projects may be different from that of
AGDC's project, and thus some of the information will be
irrelevant and some will be useful. He highlighted that this is
a situation in which AGDC can obtain the information that's
already been created and not have to recreate it; the private
companies will provide the information with the knowledge that
AGDC is preparing a report for its project and the report for
AGDC's project will be public.
1:38:06 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether the confidentiality
agreement would not specify with which companies AGDC is
dealing.
MR. FAUSKE said he couldn't imagine that ever happening.
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that he's trying to determine whether
[the confidentiality agreement] refers to the trade secret
information, proprietary information, or all information that
AGDC receives and that no one knows anything until the final
report to the legislature.
MR. FAUSKE surmised that Co-Chair Seaton is referring to a sort
of open season situation in which one wouldn't be allowed to
know who placed a bid. He reiterated that he didn't believe
this would be such a situation at the juncture at which this
report will be on July 1. First, it won't be an open season
situation. Second, AGDC will have gleaned from the information
gathered the ability to create a report that will be distributed
to the legislature, which then becomes a public document.
Therefore, AGDC will negotiate with the firms ahead of time with
regard to what information can be divulged and how that
information is being used.
1:39:33 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if this confidentiality agreement is being
placed in statute not just for this report but for the project
as it goes forward.
MR. WRIGHT replied no. He reminded the committee that all House
Bill 369 did was establish the guidelines and the joint In-State
Gasline Development Team. In order to reach the point of an
open season, based on what is reported to the legislature
further legislation would be required. The [open season] is the
situation in which Co-Chair Seaton's concerns could arise, but
that's not contained in House Bill 369 or HB 189. The
legislation, HB 189, before the committee today clarifies what
was passed in House Bill 369. In further response to Co-Chair
Seaton, Mr. Wright clarified that paragraph (13) on page 4 of HB
189 relates specifically to AGDC. When the report is complete,
there is no knowledge as to what the legislature will do.
However, he acknowledged that AGDC does have a subsidiary and
the chances are good that it will participate in the next
process. Still, that's for the legislature to determine.
1:41:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether it makes sense to place the
language of paragraph (13) under paragraph (12)(A) in order to
clarify that proprietary, privileged, and trade secret
[information] is covered by a confidentiality agreement.
MS. KIRSCH responded that it would be a possibility, although it
would take a little re-drafting. She recommended that the
committee would have to ask the attorney for AGDC whether such a
change would work for the documents that they need to protect.
MR. VASSAR surmised that the suggestion is for the existing
paragraph (13) to become paragraph (12)(C).
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER replied yes.
MR. VASSAR said he is completely comfortable with that.
1:42:48 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether that really changes anything. He
then suggested that the discussion is really for [paragraph
(12)(B) to become paragraph (12)(A)(1)] and the existing
paragraph (13) to become paragraph (12)(A)(2). He asked if the
aforementioned would be effective for AGDC.
MR. VASSAR replied yes.
MS. KIRSCH inquired as to whether the intent of the amendment is
that the confidentiality agreement would only cover proprietary,
privileged, or trade secret information.
1:44:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON said he thought that there are two different
questions, and then asked if [Ms. Kirsch's understanding] would
satisfy AGDC's needs.
MR. VASSAR replied no. He reminded the committee that the
language in paragraph (12)(A) is existing law, and therefore
proprietary, privileged, and trade secret information is already
protected. Therefore, adding a sub-subparagraph to that
subparagraph wouldn't add anything to what [AGDC] is doing.
1:45:06 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON emphasized that he's trying to understand what's
being [protected] and added beyond proprietary, privileged, and
trade secret information.
MR. VASSAR stated that AGDC largely anticipates receiving
proprietary, privileged, and trade secret information. However,
AGDC is trying to avoid the necessity of making fine point
distinctions between what is proprietary or trade secret
information and what is not. These are terms that don't have
specific meanings when considering a specific item of
information. By allowing an exemption for confidentiality
agreements that AGDC enters into, AGDC wouldn't have to make
those distinctions.
1:46:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON questioned whether AGDC could develop a
definition for "proprietary, privileged, and trade secret
information" that would fit its current circumstances. The
current language, she opined, is "really wide." Therefore, the
committee would like to narrow the scope [of the confidentiality
agreement] while allowing AGDC to accomplish its goal.
MR. VASSAR asked then whether the legislation would specify that
AGDC would define these terms by regulation or in the
confidentiality agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON highlighted that definitions are often
placed in legislation so there's no doubt.
1:48:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he understands the need to maintain
confidentiality of [proprietary, privileged, and trade secret
information]. However, there may be some fairly mundane
information for which [a company] spent lots of money to obtain
that the company would like to guard.
1:49:15 PM
MR. FAUSKE reminded the committee that AGDC will be asking other
people for their information and it's difficult to determine
what AGDC considers confidential proprietary, privileged, and
trade secret information versus what a company does. When one
enters into a confidentiality agreement, one gives his/her word
that without further reference to the company the information
won't be divulged. However, the nature of the work AGDC will be
doing will bring the information to the legislature via the
report. This language attempts to expedite the process of
moving the work forward as it's due July 1. He expressed the
need to avoid ending up in a room with attorneys trying to
define the terms proprietary, privileged, and trade secret
information, which is what occurred in the ENSTAR Natural Gas
Company situation. In such a situation every little nuance has
to be protected and there ends up being a 20-some page
agreement. Again, he reminded the committee that AGDC doesn't
have the information it needs. "I swear to you I won't give
your information away, is what I'm trying to get to," he
remarked.
1:50:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her belief that AGDC could do
the aforementioned, even without this language in HB 189.
MR. VASSAR replied yes, AGDC could negotiate a 20-some page
agreement. However, the amount of time spent agreeing on what
the parties agree on is time that could've been spent preparing
the report. The point is that time is valuable, particularly in
this circumstance. Furthermore, when one meets with these
companies, one meets with an "army" and it takes lots of time to
negotiate matters. He then noted his agreement with
Representative Dick's earlier comments regarding the fact that
while the information these companies hold may not be
proprietary or trade secret information, they have spent a lot
of money to obtain the information and aren't willing to [allow
it to be public]. However, sometimes they will create a safe
room where the companies allow others to view the information
but not have the information. The aforementioned is a difficult
way in which to work on a report.
1:52:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether the sponsor would be
comfortable having this provision sunset, since it seems to
really address only this report.
1:53:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if it's the intention to provide the
information being protected with the confidentiality agreement
at the point of an open season, in the report to the
legislature, or does it remain confidential after the reporting
period.
MR. VASSAR replied no, adding that the expectation is that the
confidentiality of the information would continue to be
protected. However, Mr. Vassar related that he isn't sure of
AGDC's role after the report is submitted and remarked that it
will be up to the legislature to determine what future role AGDC
has after the report. If AGDC doesn't have a role after the
report, he assumed that it would return the information to those
from whom it was obtained.
1:56:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK opined that a sunset would seem to solve the
whole problem.
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that he has obtained information from
the sponsor that a sunset clause would be acceptable.
1:56:38 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:56:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if there is any history of
disclosed information that was deemed proprietary, privileged,
or trade secret information by one party but was ordered by a
court or other entity to be released.
MR. VASSAR responded not to his knowledge in Alaska. However,
he reminded the committee that Alaska doesn't have a lot of case
law history given its youth. Still, he related his expectation
that for information subject to a confidentiality agreement that
is proprietary or trade secret, the Alaska Supreme Court would
honor and protect it. He related his understanding that there
hasn't been an obligation to disclose by the Alaska Supreme
court in such a situation. The question, he reminded the
committee, being addressed is what information is proprietary
and trade secret information. If all parties understood and
agreed that a particular piece of paper contained proprietary
information, then he didn't doubt that the Alaska Supreme Court
would protect that.
1:58:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the consequences to the
state or agency for an unauthorized disclosure under current law
versus the proposed legislation.
MR. VASSAR answered that the consequences, which would be
unpleasant, would be the same either way. He anticipated that
violation [unauthorized disclosure] of information that
inherently has value or has value due to the time, effort, and
funds put forth by the entity to gather that information would
result in a lawsuit.
CO-CHAIR SEATON interjected that there are other consequences,
specifically to the individual who released the information, as
well. In response to Representative Gardner, Co-Chair Seaton
clarified that the aforementioned doesn't change [with HB 189].
2:01:12 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON informed everyone that a conceptual amendment to
repeal paragraph (13) on December 31, 2011 will be offered upon
the conclusion of public testimony. He then opened public
testimony. Upon determining no one wished to testify, closed
public testimony.
2:01:56 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 4, lines 16-18;
Repeal paragraph (13) on December 31, 2011
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:02:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed concern that she has been
unable to speak to Mr. Heinze or have a statement from ANGDA
regarding HB 189.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said that he believes Mr. Heinze knew HB 189 was
going to come before the committee as it has been scheduled.
2:03:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report HB 189, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
189(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0146A.PDF |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB0146B.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB146 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Request for Hearing_HRES_.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB146-CCED-ARRC-02-25-11.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Chronolgy Final.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 146 |
| Dec_17_RR_letter[1].pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Corp_ARTA_2005_excerpt.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 189 Hearing Request.PDF |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| HB 189 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| HB0189A.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| HB189-DOR-AHFC-03-18-11 AGDC.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 189 |
| Legal Opinion-Confidentiality.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 369.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 369 |
| AS01.10.070.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| AS38.34.030.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| AS38.34.050.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| AS40.25.110.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| AS40.25.120.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| AS40.25.220.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 21 Hearing Request.PDF |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 21 sectional.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 21 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR021A.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 21 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 21 Powerpoint.pptx |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| land ownership.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| S.O. 3310 Congress bypass.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| S.O. 3310 Land use planning.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| S.O. 3310 parnell reax.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| S.O. 3310 release.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| S.O. 3310 Wilderness Inventory.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| S.O. 3310.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Who owns AK Map.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Media Advisory on Oversight Hearing on Wild Lands Policy.PDF |
HRES 3/21/2011 1:00:00 PM |