May 2003 RAB Meeting Minutes
The meeting was held at the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Offices in Anchorage, Alaska, with telephone connections. The following were in attendance:
- Welcome and Opening Remarks:
- By-Laws [agenda item change]
- City of Adak Comments on Presentation, Letter from RAB
The island RAB did receive via mail the new ordnance awareness videotapes and coloring books, and these were reviewed just before the proposed plan meeting to amend the OU A ROD. Several people commented that they liked the materials.
Mark indicated that there would be a preview of the video and other ordnance awareness materials tomorrow morning at 10:00 in Anchorage. Adak Island RAB members were the first to view the video, with the exception of Mark.
Cathy thanked everyone on Adak for making her trip there a couple of weeks ago really successful-- and fun. She appreciated the community's participation and interest. People took time from their busy schedules and talked with her about the RAB and all the environmental cleanup issues happening in Adak. Eleven people out of 67 residents turned out, which is about 16 percent. If you got 16 percent of a community like Anchorage together, there'd be 60,000 people present. Cathy asked the RAB whether they had any comments regarding the letter or her visit. No one had any questions or comments specific to the visit.
Steve Hines initiated a discussion of the presence of exposed materials on the north side of the Metals Landfill. These materials were barrels filled with sand to form a part of the breakwater or pier structure. Some residents have indicated that they want the metals cleaned up because they pose a physical hazard and/or eyesore. Mark indicated that under the Navy's cleanup program, it does not have the authority to clean up physical hazards. Because this||||doesn't have any status as a contaminated site, there aren't any plans by the Navy to take corrective action there. Some members of the RAB were concerned because they felt that the exposed materials were a safety issue as well as an eyesore.
Sami Goldman stated that some time this summer (around July 1) ADEC's solid waste project manager would be coming out to Adak to check on the landfills. She suggested that someone could show him the subject area of the landfill. It was suggested that the ADEC solid waste person could contact Steve Hines and the mayor and take a look at the location. Sami indicated that the State might have the authority under its solid waste program to deal with the issue. Jason Weigle [sp?] is the project manager who will be visiting the island.
Cathy returned the discussion to the City's response to her letter, which addressed the future of the RAB. She believes this issue has been resolved with the new members and the new community co-chair. Nancy Glazier asked what the City's response was to the letter. Several people suggested that Cathy read or summarize the letter.
Cathy said that she thought the RAB would have to be changed once the FOST was signed and TAC took over as owners. She indicated that the RAB need responses from the City of Adak and TAC as to the direction they thought the RAB should go. She reiterated the importance of input from residents on the island--the RAB belongs in the community that it serves. She read the last paragraph of the letter to the RAB members. "As preparation for transfer of the Navy base to TAC, and the City of Adak assumes its role in providing for the day-to-day needs of the residents of Adak, it is appropriate for the RAB to reexamine its future role. As future owners of the property, TAC and the City of Adak have a primary role in identifying their concerns related to the future environmental cleanup. For this reason, it may be necessary to transition the focus of community involvement related to the remaining Navy environmental cleanup activities to the community of Adak."
Cathy indicated that this does not mean that the Anchorage contingent of the RAB is "bailing out;" for example, Mary Grisco has been with the RAB since the beginning; so have Mike Mitchell and Pam Miller. Someone indicated that one of the best responses to this query is the addition of seven new RAB members from the Adak community. He said that presently about 90 percent of the decisions made concerning Adak, including RAB decisions, are made by people who don't live there. He indicated that he would like to see the RAB meetings moved back out to the island.
Mark said that electing Violet as the co-community chair is to act as the host for RAB meetings that occur from the island. Cathy added that that was the goal.
- The Aleut Corporation-Transfer Status
Dave Jensen spoke about transfer status. Obviously, the completion of the FOST pending signature by the Navy is in front of us. He indicated that the Navy should not sign the FOST (kicking off the 90-day period) until the three pre-conditions are all met. Adak's economy is now looking better; fishing and other opportunities are now looking good. The mayor and city council know that MDI is considering Adak for sea-based radar, so that pre-condition is looking better.
The second precondition is that the City be up and running. Two years ago that wasn't the case; now the city council, mayor, and city utilities are shaping up nicely, so that precondition has been met.
The third precondition is the transfer of the airfield, and it is this precondition that is linked to the signing of the FOST. The TAC board of directors has 90 days after the signature is placed on the FOST to decide whether to go ahead. It would be placing the TAC board in a corner to have to make a decision before the transfer of the airfield actually happens. The Commissioner of the Alaska DOT is engaged; the governor is engaged and supportive. They are performing due diligence right now by looking at what it will take to transfer this airfield from the Navy to the State of Alaska. He predicts that a transfer agreement will be completed within a few months, so that the FOST can be accomplished within the year. His goal is to make the transfer of the airfield happen.
Dave said that he is pleased with the support of the City of Adak in this effort. Alaska Air now provides service to Adak. Adak's economic future includes having big jet service, and now it has been provided. He predicts that there will be more jet traffic in the future. He is excited that this is going to happen-commercial reuse is what BRAC is all about. He said there had been minor difficulties with differing opinions among federal agencies-specifically, the USAF called the airfield unsafe after the FAA had declared the airfield safe. He said that this issue would be worked out.
Nancy asked Dave whether TAC had a response to the letter that Cathy had sent to TAC and to the City of Adak. He said he applauded the RAB for what they had done in the past. From the TAC perspective, it will receive a deed with serious restrictions on land use-that prohibit the property owner from doing certain things in certain areas (e.g., digging in landfills, polluted areas). The RAB exists only because of Navy's use of the land previous to the transfer of the deed. After the transfer, as CEO of the company that will eventually own the property, he will assume all responsibilities for any future damage to the environment. Meetings to continue to discuss remediation may be necessary by the RAB-he doesn't know. There may be continuing issues out there-he indicated that he is not that familiar with the obligations the Navy has following transfer.
As the new owner, TAC will have a deed to land that has recognized environmental problems on it that have been addressed by the RAB and by the Navy. Dave wondered what more could be done. Cathy said that there would still be ongoing remediation with regard to oil contaminants and Munitions. A change in ownership won't change the Navy's responsibility for the contaminants existing out there. Dave said he thought the Navy would continue to have a role to do whatever remediation is required by EPA and DEC. He said that personally he would rather see a more localized equitable servitude. For example, he thinks the responsibility for issuing dig permits should reside in Adak; he thinks control should be decentralized.
Agafon indicated he believed that the Navy cannot manage the implementation of institutional controls from Poulsbo, that instead the Navy should contract to the City of Adak to perform this function. Dave said that TAC as future landowner would honor all restrictions on deeds.
Char Grisvold commented that if the responsibility were placed solely in the regional or local community, what would happen if mustard gas or something else that's the Navy's responsibility were found? How would the community get the Navy involved again?
Mark indicated that the Navy will always be liable for any contamination associated with US Department of Defense (DOD) activities on Adak. Mustard gas, petroleum contamination-anything that is attributable to past military activities before or after the transfer date-the Navy would be liable for.
Char asked why oil drums in other locations in Alaska (such as Unalaska) that were left by the military were being cleaned up by other contractors and not the federal government. The response was that at Unalaska the contractors were conducting a cleanup for the US Army Corps of Engineers. While the contractors may be civilian, they are being paid for by the DOD program.
In response to a question regard the Alaska Airline's contract, Dave said that it was funded for a year with a contract option for an additional year. He believes that Alaska Air may be able to fly the Adak route without subsidy. Dave's goal is to get the jet service to be subsidy-free. Reeve Air was able to do that, up to 2001.
- FOST Status
Mark said the FOST was made available to the public March 13 for comment. The comment period ended March 14. The Navy received comments from ADEC, EPA, TAC, and A/PIA and has developed comment responses. These responses will be included in the responsiveness summary that goes along with the completed FOST for Parcel 1B and the addendum to Parcel 1A FOST. It will be available for EFANW's commanding officer's signature on May 30. However, as indicated earlier, the Navy will not be signing it at this point while the dialogue is ongoing regarding airfield transfer. The conclusion of the FOST is that Parcels 1A and 1B are suitable for transfer, and remedial actions to support that transfer have been completed.
Kevin Oates asked when EPA could expect to see the Navy's responses to comments. Mark indicated that his answer would hinge on when the FOST is signed. Dave said that he expected the Navy would want to sign the FOST as soon as TAC had a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the State regarding the airfield. Mark said that when he returned to the office he could transmit the comment responses in advance of the signature to the FOST. As soon as the FOST is signed the comment responses would be distributed to all those on the distribution list.
Mark indicated that the comments and the responsiveness summary would be posted on the Adak website.
- Upcoming Field Season
USGS began doing assessment work in May to evaluate existing data and gather more field data to better locate monitoring points for long-term-monitoring for the petroleum sites, primarily monitored natural attenuation sites. They finished the first round of drilling. They didn't get some drilling equipment that they needed to support installation of new monitoring points. They plan on going up June 3 for a couple of weeks for this effort. They will be done by the end of June.
The pipeline closure will begin June 17 and will probably end no later than July 17. GeoEngineers is the contractor for this work.
Marine monitoring is scheduled to begin in late July or early August and will take a couple of weeks to complete. Rock sole and blue mussel from Kuluk Bay and Sweeper Cove will be sampled. We'll also be doing background sampling in Bay of Islands, as we've done several other seasons on Adak. The comprehensive monitoring of various sites will be completed to meet the Navy's obligations under the Comprehensive Monitoring Plan, which is currently being revised to incorporate data collected over the last field season and to exercise the institutional controls monitoring plan, which is part of the ICMP program. Inspections as part of the obligation of this program will begin in mid-September and should be completed in October. Site inspections will be conducted at all IC sites to make sure that land uses and ICs are being maintained and that remedies in place are effective. There will also be monitoring of natural attenuation sites, collection of groundwater samples at those sites, inspections of landfills and signage, and a survey of the ordnance awareness education program to make sure that it is effective.
Sampling of drinking water in certain Sandy Cove housing units will be conducted in June to determine the effectiveness of faucet replacement in reducing lead and copper concentrations in drinking water. Faucet replacement has been completed for a couple of months.
Mark indicated that there would be far fewer people on island conducting fieldwork than in past seasons. He guessed that the pipeline job would have a field crew of less than 15 people, who would be on island for 3 weeks to a month. The remainder of the jobs would have smaller crews.
A question was asked regarding when the sampling results of the blue mussel and rock sole would be available. Mark said that results from the last two years' sampling effort were not yet available, but he expects to get those any time now. URS is doing the fieldwork this season, so the turnaround should be much quicker. Bill Rohrer said that the laboratory results of this summer's sampling effort would be available about 30 days from the time they were submitted to the lab. Probably 2 to 4 weeks of data validation would occur following the receipt of results. Mark said that a report would not be available until probably the first of the New Year. Mark said that the new report would include all data from previous field seasons, including that gathered by the BRD folks.
Agafon asked why only blue mussel and rock sole were being sampled. Mark said that the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) identified these two species as the worst probable contaminant receptors; that is, the concentration attributable from releases from sites upgradient of Kuluk Bay and Sweeper Cove to those two species were thought by the BTAG and those participating in structuring the RI/FS to be the species that would be the best indicator species. Agafon said that the most popular fish are the Dolly Varden. These fish don't have much exposure to sediment contamination. Blue mussel and rock sole, on the other hand, do have exposure to sediments, so if there's contamination to pick up there, they would show it. Kevin stated that Dolly Vardens were sampled in the RI and the contamination wasn't that high.
Agafon asked whether blue mussel were more contaminated than the rock sole. Mark said that without having the report in front of him, he couldn't be sure, but he thought that the contaminant concentrations in blue mussels were reducing more rapidly and were closer to risk-based concentrations than for the rock sole. Mary Lou said Mark was correct, for the data that the Navy has seen (not including the last two years of USGS data). Someone asked why it had taken so long to get the data for the last 2 years, and why the data from this year's sampling would be available so much more quickly. Mark said that it was probably due to the pace of academic research versus the pace of contractor work. BRD is more academically inclined as a research group; the Navy tends to have more control over the schedule that contractors adhere to.
- Special Topic: Ordnance Incident
Mark began the discussion of the institutional controls failure incident, asking Steve to fill in. Mark said that Steve had called him Tuesday and told him that someone had brought to his office a pickup truck that had about 15 ordnance-related items. Some of them looked as though they were "full-up." The people who had gathered the items apparently had worked at the fish processing plant. They had collected the items at some location, which was not clear. They brought them in to Steve's office with the idea of disposing of them somehow. Steve sent some pictures of the articles to Mark later in the day, and the items appeared similar to items that have washed up along the Andrew Lake seawall periodically. John Pitts and Steve have indicated that the gates that lead to the Andrew Lake seawall from the recreational cabin on Andrew Lake have been broken down. A pickup can now be driven through. Steve wanted to confiscate the truck; the owners were not keen about that, so the articles were transferred to an empty magazine on Bering Hill and were secured.
Whidbey Island's explosives ordnance disposal (EOD) team has now seen the photographs, and given the photos and Mark's description of the incident, their assessment is that the articles don't pose any immediate hazard in their current location. The team does not plan an immediate response to come up to the island to dispose of the articles. They will come up sometime, probably mid-June, to assess the articles and probably do an open detonation for the articles that require it.
Steve also mentioned-and Mark agrees-that there is a need to fix the access road at the Andrew Lake access point so that pickup trucks can no longer get through, and use some City equipment to do so. The Navy will make that happen; it has to use a contract mechanism to pay the city to do this work. The initial plan (subject to EFANW contracting review) is to have the small business contractor, ICRC, subcontract with the City to go out and move boulders into place or place other obstructions in the roads, so that they can't be accessed by vehicles. ICRC would go up and prepare signage and postings at that location.
This is the Navy's initial response to the incident. As part of the ordnance awareness program review, the Navy is giving some thought as to how to better communicate to people working at the fish processing plant or other locations. The access controls on Parcel 4 are well posted; admittedly, the Andrew Lake seawall||||is somewhat speculative. [Nonetheless,] whoever did this, did it deliberately, against the instructions of the posting currently at the access location. Apparently, they tore down existing barriers to access this road. There is little the Navy is going to be able to do to prevent someone who is determined to go through the signage and gates from doing so, whether the Navy is on or off the island.
Mark said that the Navy needs to determine how they may better communicate the risks to people who are not regularly exposed to the ordnance education awareness program and to take some action to improve the obstacles to vehicle access there.
Agafon indicated that he believed to have a good IC program for the community; the responsible party can't be off island. He offered the solution of contracting with the City to make sure that these things don't happen. Mark said that the Navy had contracted with ICRC and others to maintain ICs and to inspect and ensure that what is being done on Adak is effective. Which is not to say that there aren't improvements that can be made. These improvements must be done within the boundaries of the contracting options available to the Navy. It may at some future point translate into the Navy's contracting with someone actually on island. He wouldn't rule out this possibility, although he doesn't know who that might be.
Agafon said that on St. Paul and St. George, NOAA (Department of Commerce) has a contract with the local cities to make sure that their ICs are covered.
Cathy offered that one solution would be to have the City of Adak make a law that people can't drag bombs through the town. Steve said that the problem still exists that there are two open gates at the Andrew Lake seawall. Cathy said making it unlawful to move ordnance through town and placing boulders to prohibit access could both be employed as solutions. Mark said that the road access issue would be fixed before the end of June and hopefully before the end of next week. He added that it wouldn't be right for the Navy to expect the City to place the access restrictions using City funds.
Steve wondered how the message about ordnance dangers could be distributed. Two-thirds of the population are transients-fishermen, contractors, e.g. it's easier to educate the children with coloring books. But the fishermen, for example, are only on island for a few hours, and they want to rent a vehicle and go look around. And the signs-it's easy to get used to them, so that you don't even notice them anymore.
It was asked whether the perpetrators were even transients. The answer wasn't clear. Someone else said that this type of incident would always happen. Why would we think that just gates and signs are going to stop people? There was some discussion regarding the natural draw that people have for things like this-the "attractive nuisance" aspect for not only teens but also adults. Char asked whether DOD planned to continue to come out yearly and remove the items washed up on the seawall. Mark said that EOD swept the seawall twice last year and would sweep it again this year.
Cathy reiterated that employing huge fines for people who carried out such activities would be a deterrent. Nancy asked whether the City would be willing to pass an ordinance that mirrored the institutional controls so that the City would have some enforcement authority? Agafon indicated that the City might not want to do that unless it knew it could afford to enforce the ordinance. Steve asked Nancy whether there were federal laws against such activity and she said no. Cathy suggested that the City could make the fine steep enough that it could cover the cost of enforcement. Nancy indicated that in situations like this where there was a threat to public safety, it would seem to be a responsible thing to do for the City to pass some ordinances that could be another deterrent to these kinds of activities.
Mark said that it wasn't being suggested that the City embark on a costly program. The Navy will always incur the cost of responding to the incident and destroying any ordnance found on Adak. Steve says that his point is that these people should not have been able to drive down this road in the first place. Mark agreed that the Navy should make it as difficult as possible to reach the seawall location, but added that we would never reach a point where somebody who is very determined to get to the seawall, cannot get there. Someone else raised the issue of the City's liability with having its police officer having to lock up these materials.
Mark said that if the ordnance education program were working, as it should be, no one should have been out there in the first place. And if they were out there and found these materials, they should have called the Navy, who would deal with it in place without disturbing it. Steve wondered how you could educate someone if they don't want to be educated about the issue. Mark said that one of the things they were trying to do with the ordnance education program was to saturate the market. The Navy will add, along with new posters and videos, pack cards, coffee cups, and other things that will keep the call number and ordnance awareness information in front of the public on a regular basis.
Even in earlier years, with mandatory Blue Card training, there were incidents where people would take things and move things where they shouldn't be moved. We just have to make it more difficult to get into these areas. Mark agreed but said that even making these areas more inaccessible would not deter someone who really wants to get to these areas. Steve suggested perhaps dedicating a cable channel to this effort.
Mary Lou asked about the languages of the people working at the fish processing plant. The response was Spanish, Fillipino, and Russian. She wondered if these employees would be able to read the signage. Someone said that they primarily spoke English. Agafon thought that the problem existed more with the people from the fishing boats, rather than the fish processing plant employees. Nancy asked if the City could provide some suggestions for improving the program, as well as passing some ordinances. Agafon said that adding this extra workload to the already-busy police department would require extra money. Steve said that he was essentially the entire police department.
Jenna Mueller asked why the ICMP review wasn't until September or October. She wondered what the Navy would do between now and next month to make sure that this doesn't happen again, or the risk of this happening again is lessened. Mark said that in the immediate future the Navy would subcontract through a contractor to the City to install obstructions to Andrew Lake seawall road accesses. In the longer term, there are various ordnance awareness education materials on island. If anyone has comments or suggestions on improving the program, the Navy would love to get them, as part of the comments you're submitting on the materials themselves. In October, during the comprehensive review of all the ICs, the effectiveness of the obstructions, etc., can be evaluated. Maintenance on the signage and fencing will also be done, as well as a beach sweep in June. Jenna reiterated that there would be more people on island this summer and it would be useful to have solutions in place before they arrive.
Jenna asked what happens when someone calls the 1-800 number--what chain of events does this set in motion. Mark said that the phone formerly rang on Patty Kelly's desk; it will now ring on Jim Brown's desk. The Navy will take the information received from the line and follow up as appropriate. That may not translate to a response every time the 800 numbers is called. Jenna said that the majority of ordnance calls would probably be from someone who was out hiking and stumbled across an item that they think is ordnance. They mark it on a map; they describe it as rusty and cone-shaped. So will the Navy send someone out to photograph it or get a further description of it, and who might that person be? To sum up, the Navy will have the initial information; it will need more description from an EOD point of view. Who will go out and collect that additional information?
Mark replied that this time (i.e. the ordnance incident described earlier), Steve responded. Generally, there is a contractor on island or someone who can actually take a photograph and send it back. EOD makes an assessment of whether they have enough information about the incident, and if they don't have enough information and it's not possible for them to get that information, they'll get on a plane and go out there, assess the situation themselves, and probably respond in the same trip. Mark added that in all the cases he was aware of, a photograph has been enough information for them to make an assessment and the need for a response. Patty added that once the transfer happens, the telephone will be equipped with a calling trace-press "1" for EOD and the caller will be able to describe the ordnance item to them. Mark suggested that emailing them a photo would be the best thing to do. Jenna stated that in all the ordnance awareness materials, nowhere does it say take a photo. It says mark the spot on a map and get a physical description. Mark said that if there were a way to get a photo, EOD would probably want a photo.
Kevin said that the discussion of the last half hour or so is an indication of what is working with ICs and educational awareness when it comes to explosives on Adak. It's been a frank and open discussion of an incident where things did not work out as planned. I want to commend the Navy and commend Steve for addressing this issue as quickly as they did. EPA learned about the incident within minutes of his hearing about it. This is what we had talked about ahead of time regarding the ICs-that if there's a point where something breaks down, we wanted to work in an atmosphere of little to no surprises, and getting the word out as quickly as possible. From his perspective, a lot of the things they'd wanted to see happen if there was a breakdown in ICs, did happen. That's a good news part of the discussion. The other part is how do we improve the program so that it doesn't happen again. He thought a lot of good ideas had been presented as part of the discussion.
Mark said that Agafon's point was well taken-that the Navy used to have more control over behavior on Adak Island than they do now, because they have no physical presence there at some points. Maybe the use of just fenceposts needs to be revisited, and the idea of more imposing physical barriers needs to be evaluated.
Kevin added it would be good to get more information from the individual about the incident, so that it would be clear where the material came from. Even if some sort of amnesty needed to be offered. When he looked at the photos he thought that while some of the materials looked much like the materials that typically come from the seawall, others look less weathered. His concern is that the person may have gone to more than one place to find things. It could be that they were found in a||||heretofore unknown-it's happened before. Mark said he had been told that these people were now off the island, but it would be useful to get more information.
Jenna said that at the old OB/OD area in Parcel 4, there are some items sitting out on a pallet in an area that is road-accessible. Some of the USFWS fox trappers told her about this; they said that several of the items looked like projectiles. Mark thought that this was a scrap heap of inert ordnance items that were discovered, which doesn't mean that it's not an attractive nuisance.
Steve asked about the 1-800 number. When he called the other day, he got an answering machine. He wondered whether the number would be manned 24/7. Mary Lou said that when the phone tree was put in place, the EOD would be manning the line 24/7. Currently EFANW checks the messages every morning, so there is a delay, unless the call comes in during normal business hours. Mary Lou says the audience for the videos and coloring books is residents. These materials weren't created with an intent to capture the transient audience, like people coming in on the ships. Maybe that's a topic for discussing with the fish processing people-how to facilitate transfer of this information to them, whether the materials need to be in a different language(s), etc. Pam agreed. Mary Lou asked whether signs that have been up for a long time ought to be removed and replaced with signs that have more universal understanding, using icons, for example.
Steve said that with the elimination of the signs, there needs to be a||||for people to go and get this information. Mary Lou said that at one point it had been asked whether the City would be amenable to doing this in some office space in the high school. She would like people on island to write down their ideas for capturing this other population, so that the Navy can have them now, while they're in the process of revising the program.
Mark's objective was to collect on the comments on the existing information (videos, etc.) and use them to prepare the next and hopefully final revisions of the initial set of materials. If we could get this input as soon as possible, we'd appreciate that. Mary Lou said that while it was important to get information on the existing information is important, but if the Navy needs to set up something to capture these nonresidents, they need to know.
JoAnn Grady indicated that the idea of passing an ordinance could be a RAB recommendation to the city council.
- Next Meeting Date
The next RAB teleconference will be held August 20 at 5 p.m. Adak time (note the earlier time) to set the agenda for the October 29 RAB meeting, also at 5 p.m. Adak time.
Mark made an announcement that Patty Kelly has moved to a different position within EFANW, and he took the opportunity to thank her for her participation in the RAB.
| Name | Affiliation | Location |
| Cathy Villa | Community Co-Chair | Anchorage, AK |
| Mark Murphy | Navy Co-Chair | Anchorage, AK |
| Char Gisvold | RAB Community Member | Florida |
| Mike Mitchell | RAB Community Member | Anchorage, AK |
| Pam Miller | RAB Community Member | Anchorage, AK |
| Mary Grisco | RAB Community Member | Anchorage, AK |
| Steve Hines | RAB Community Member | Adak, AK |
| Chuck Luck | New RAB Community Member | Adak, AK |
| Rachel Kratz | New RAB Community Member | Adak, AK |
| Violet Pearl | New Community RAB Member | Adak, AK |
| Ed McNall | New Community RAB Member | Adak, AK |
| Will Tillion | New RAB Community Member | Adak, AK |
| Chuck Mohn | RAB Community Member | Adak, AK |
| Dave Jensen | The Aleut Corporation | Anchorage, AK |
| Sami Goldman | ADEC | Anchorage, AK |
| Kevin Oates | EPA | Anchorage, AK |
| Jenna Mueller | USFWS | Homer, AK |
| Patty Kelly | EFA, NW | Poulsbo, WA |
| Nancy Glazier | EFA, NW | Poulsbo, WA |
| Mary Lou Sullivan | URS | Poulsbo, WA |
| JoAnn Grady | Grady & Associates | Anchorage, AK |
| Bill Rohrer | URS | Anchorage, AK |
Cathy Villa called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. (Anchorage Time). The agenda was approved as presented. The March 2003 meeting minutes were approved.
There was an initial discussion regarding RAB membership. Mary Grisco indicated that one of the issues regarding membership is commitment-people have shown up and wanted to be involved and then have not come to the meetings. Char Griswold said that one of the reasons that people have come and gone from the RAB meetings in the nature of living on the island, that people come and go. She said that the RAB needed to include as many people as it could and no be exclusionary. Mark Murphy said that the Navy has no interest in excluding anybody from the process, and that he didn't think anybody here does either.
Pam Miller indicated that she wasn't questioning whether people ought to be participating. She said that it was a question of process, and there hasn't been a process by which new RAB members commit to participating in the RAB, something like a letter of intent. There used to be a little form people used to apply to become a member of the RAB. This process ought to be documented in the RAB by-laws. Mark indicated that the by-laws do allow for inclusion of new members in the RAB based on a verbal interview, which is just what was done. He said that to approve the new members, someone needed to make a motion.
Cathy Villa stated that the RAB should also vote at this time on having Violet Pearl as a community co-chair, along with Cathy. In the recent meeting Cathy held at Adak, she thought they were pretty successful in getting community support for a co-chairship.
The existing RAB voted in the following new members: Ed McNall, Chuck Luck, Will Tillion, Rachel Kratz, Chuck Mohn, and Violet Pearl are now members of the Restoration Advisory Board for Adak. Violet was also approved as community co-chair. The post office boxes of the new RAB members were provided so that EFA NW could add them to their mailing list.
A discussion then took place regarding by-laws language for dissolving the RAB. Cathy indicated that she had been told that number 7 of the by-laws, stating that the RAB shall be dissolved upon a 2/3rds majority vote, was probably not correct, that even one community person can keep a RAB going. It was suggested that the termination language be eliminated altogether from the by-laws, or that the 2/3rds majority wording should be changed.
Mark suggested that the question of whether to change the termination language could be taken up after the first couple of meeting agenda items. He indicated that Cathy would describe her recent trip to the island and talk about the letter she sent as community co-chair to The Aleut Corporation (TAC) and the City of Adak. Mary indicated that she thought that the language ought to be left as is until more is known about the responses of TAC and the City to the letter.
A discussion ensued regarding the contents of a recent mailing to RAB members on island. It was thought that they had received the revised agenda and a copy of last meeting's minutes. Because island RAB members had not received the by-laws, whether to postpone the discussion to yet another RAB meeting was discussed. The members ultimately decided that the existing by-laws were acceptable.
Agafon Krukoff indicated that he would like to add to the agenda a discussion of institutional controls issues-specifically the incident where ordnance had been transported into town, and the fact that gates blocking entrances to restricted areas had been compromised. It was agreed that these issues would be discussed under the Upcoming Field Season discussion.