04/25/2022 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| SB133 | |
| SB229 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 25, 2022
3:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Joshua Revak, Chair
Senator Click Bishop
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Glenn Haight Juneau
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
SENATE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to the sale or lease of state land for remote
recreational sites; relating to permits for remote recreational
sites; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 133 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 229
"An Act relating to misconduct involving confidential
information; relating to artifacts of the state; and relating to
penalties regarding artifacts or historic, prehistoric, or
archeological resources of the state."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 133
SHORT TITLE: REMOTE RECREATIONAL SITES; SALES; PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
04/28/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/28/21 (S) RES, FIN
04/28/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/28/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/05/21 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/21 (S) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (S) MINUTE(RES)
01/31/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/31/22 (S) Heard & Held
01/31/22 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/25/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 229
SHORT TITLE: STATE HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS; CRIMES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/11/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/22 (S) JUD, RES
03/23/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/22 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/06/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/06/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/06/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/08/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/08/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/08/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/11/22 (S) Moved CSSB 229(JUD) Out of Committee
04/11/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/12/22 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
04/12/22 (S) DP: HOLLAND, SHOWER, KIEHL
04/12/22 (S) NR: MYERS, HUGHES
04/22/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/22/22 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/25/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
GLENN HAIGHT, Appointee
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission.
TRACY WELCH, Executive Director
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the appointment of
Glenn Haight to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
GARY HOLLIER, representing self
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Glenn Haight to the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
CHRISTY COLLES, Chief of Operations
Division of Mining, Land, and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 133 on behalf of the
administration.
RICKY GEASE, Director
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the division's role in
administering the programs in the Alaska Historic Preservation
Act during the hearing on SB 229.
JUDY BITTNER, Chief
History & Archaeology/State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of History & Archaeology
Alaska Historical Commission
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis and changes
in the committee substitute for SB 229, from Version W to
Version O.
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
229.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:35:21 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kiehl, Stevens, Kawasaki, von Imhof, and
Vice Chair Micciche.
^Confirmation Hearing(S)
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
3:36:17 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE announced consideration of the governor's
appointee(s) to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
3:36:36 PM
GLENN HAIGHT, Appointee, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Juneau, Alaska, stated that he
is a lifelong Alaskan. He holds a bachelor's degree in Business
Administration from the University of New Mexico and a Master's
in International Management from the Thunderbird School of
Global Management at the University of Arizona.
MR. HAIGHT provided his work experience. He stated that he
worked for the Department of Community and Regional Affairs in
1995, overseeing the Western Alaska Community Development
Program (CDQ), an offshore groundfish and crab economic
development program. He said he helped review investment
decisions, made allocation decisions, and advocated for the
program.
MR. HAIGHT stated that he worked for the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) as a fisheries
development specialist from 2001 to 2007, focusing primarily on
salmon. He noted that farmed salmon was starting to dominate the
market at the time. He said he worked on program development,
conducted outreach, and worked collaboratively on fisheries
issues.
MR. HAIGHT related that he worked as a research assistant for
the Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory program at the University
of Alaska Fairbanks from 2007 to 2011, helping to coordinate a
fisheries business program. He returned to the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) in 2011,
managing a team of development specialists.
MR. HAIGHT stated that he currently serves as the executive
director of the Board of Fisheries, administering the fisheries
regulatory process, working with agencies, the public, and the
legislature on Board of Fisheries issues.
3:39:11 PM
MR. HAIGHT stated that his work history had familiarized him
with all of Alaska's commercial fisheries, macroeconomics and
microeconomics of fisheries. He said he had developed industry
and local government contacts related to fisheries policies.
MR. HAIGHT highlighted that his management style leans towards
collaboration and communication, and he has a program
development and implementation background. He said he favors
developing good processes to guide an organization.
3:40:18 PM
MR. HAIGHT related his understanding that there has been
discussion about what a CFEC commissioner does. He noted that 6
of 19 CFEC positions are vacant, and his priority would be to
fill those positions by the end of June 2022. Although CFEC's
caseload has diminished, appeals to decisions, license fee
modifications, and requests to limit fisheries and conduct
studies will continue. Besides studying statutes, regulations,
court cases, and internal policies, he plans to review the Cook
Inlet Setnet Study and provide the public with information by
the end of the year. DCEC must inform the public about the steps
it will take to pursue any permits.
MR. HAIGHT emphasized the importance of public outreach,
engaging in forums with the commercial fleet and local
government.
MR. HAIGHT characterized CFEC's role as one that has transformed
since the 1970s. It created stability in the commercial fishing
fleet by creating a professional class of fishermen. He
highlighted several areas that need to be addressed, including
the out flight of permits held by Alaskans. He pointed out that
the commercial fishing fleet workforce was aging.
3:43:04 PM
MR. HAIGHT offered his view that the industry needs to reinvent
itself. He viewed CFEC as the gatekeeper into the industry. He
would like to have young people to come in, be competitive, and
earn a good retirement.
3:43:51 PM
SENATOR STEVENS remarked that he was qualified to serve, given
his experience. He commented that many people came to Alaska in
the 1970s and were successful fishermen. He expressed concern
that it's expensive to participate in commercial fishing because
it requires a significant investment. He asked what ideas he had
to get young people involved in the fishing industry.
MR. HAIGHT stated that besides needing to buy a boat and gear,
the permits and IFQ are expensive. He suggested that perhaps the
state could develop programs that allow for transfer plans,
similar to how it is done in farming. He was unsure of all of
the solutions and whether something more could be done regarding
DCCED's loan program, but he said he was interested in exploring
it. He commented that the average age for the fishing fleet has
increased from 41 to 52. He remarked that it might be possible
to find a better range so people who have been at it a long time
would be able to sell their assets.
SENATOR STEVENS responded that high school graduates don't have
many opportunities in commercial fishing unless they inherit
something from their parents. He said that anything he could do
in that regard would provide an advantage to the communities.
3:46:15 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for the size and scope of the significant
decrease in the adjudications. He said from its inception to a
year ago, CFEC always had at least one attorney serving as
commissioner to help with quasi-judicial proceedings. He noted
that he had a significant fisheries background but not a legal
one. He asked how that would work for CFEC.
MR. HAIGHT answered that in terms of the adjudication backlog,
CFEC had done an excellent job. He recalled that only 30 of the
1,800 cases that went to a hearing officer were appealed to the
commission. He acknowledged that the commissioners had other
functions, but he agreed commissioners handle many fewer cases,
so he would need to see what takes its place. He offered his
view that the commission had the talent and resources to help
guide the commissioners through any legal matters, including the
Department of Law. He agreed he does not have the legal
expertise and is not an attorney but noted that he was familiar
with the policies and legal precedent.
3:48:43 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE commented that he brought up an interesting
Cook Inlet study, which was an optimizing fishery values study
in Cook Inlet. Unfortunately, the way the statutes are written,
it is impossible to produce an optimization study with any
value. The Cook Inlet fisheries cover an area the size of Rhode
Island. Still, the only area with an optimization problem is
less than the square mileage of the Municipality of Anchorage.
He offered his view that CFEC will have to consider the issue as
larger populations of Alaskans expect larger shares of the
resource previously taken by commercial fisheries. He wondered
if he was willing to look at dividing an administrative area if
he had statutory authority to do so. He added that more issues
similar to this would arise. He pointed out that Bristol Bay has
massive returns, but at the same time, it goes unnoticed that
the quantity of lodges continues to increase. He asked whether
he would be willing to evaluate this going forward so that
optimization studies could improve the outcome in the future.
MR. HAIGHT answered that he had a chance to review the bill. He
agreed that the allocation issues would not be limited to Cook
Inlet. He pointed out that the Board of Fisheries assigned a
subcommittee to consider whether the number of sport fish
operators in the Naknek River was appropriate. He agreed that an
optimal number study wasn't effective, noting that one done in
the Bristol Bay drift fishery determined the optimal numbers
were between 800 and 1300. However, he said a range of 500 does
not provide anything meaningful. He said that he thought what he
was saying was to review a smaller geographic area, which might
make sense.
3:51:53 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE opened public testimony on Glenn Haight,
appointee to the Commercial Entry Fisheries Commission.
3:52:25 PM
TRACY WELCH, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska
(UFA), Petersburg, Alaska, stated that UFA is a statewide
commercial fishing trade association representing 37 commercial
fishing organizations throughout the state and the federal
fisheries off the coast of Alaska.
MS. WELCH spoke in support of the confirmation of Glenn Haight
as commissioner of the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
Mr. Haight has worked in various fisheries development and
natural resource policy-related roles dating to the mid-90s. His
most recent roles include serving as the development manager for
the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED) and as the Alaska Board of Fisheries executive director.
These administrative roles have allowed him to grow his
leadership and communication skills.
MS. WELCH stated that in addition to Mr. Haight's proven track
record of success in administrative roles, he knows the
different fisheries of the state. As the executive director of
the Board of Fisheries, he has had a front-row seat in many
fisheries throughout the state. She said his familiarity with
current fisheries matters would be helpful when tackling issues
before CFEC. He is well positioned to be an effective leader and
an asset at CFEC. Not only does he possess the proper education
and work experience necessary to succeed in the management
aspects of CFEC's commissioner role, his familiarity and history
with fisheries issues and his demonstrated ability to work with
the public make him a well-rounded candidate. For these reasons,
UFA supports the confirmation of Glenn Haight for CFEC.
3:54:13 PM
GARY HOLLIER, representing self, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of Glenn Haight to the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission. He stated that he has worked for over 50 years as an
east side Cook Inlet commercial fishing setnetter. Thus, he has
dealt with CFEC for many years. He stated that he received an
original limited entry permit. He has dealt with Mr. Haight on
fisheries issues related to the Board of Fisheries. He said Mr.
Haight has always been very responsive in providing information
and data. He offered his belief that he would be a good CFEC
commissioner.
MR. HOLLIER agreed that the optimization studies done in Cook
Inlet are worthless. He offered his view that Mr. Haight would
be able to "think outside of the box." He said he gives 100
percent endorsement for his appointment to CFEC. He
characterized him as "top shelf."
3:55:22 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE closed public testimony on the confirmation
hearing for Glenn Haight as commissioner to the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission.
3:55:36 PM
SENATOR STEVENS stated that in accordance with AS 39.05.080, the
Senate Resources Standing Committee reviewed the following and
recommends the appointments be forwarded to a joint session for
consideration:
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Glenn Haight - Juneau
[Signing the reports regarding appointments to boards and
commissions in no way reflects individual members' approval or
disapproval of the appointees; the nominations are merely
forwarded to the full legislature for confirmation or
rejection.]
3:56:05 PM
At ease
SB 133-REMOTE RECREATIONAL SITES; SALES; PERMITS
3:56:12 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE announced the consideration of SENATE BILL
NO. 133 "An Act relating to the sale or lease of state land for
remote recreational sites; relating to permits for remote
recreational sites; and providing for an effective date."
He noted that this was the third hearing in this committee, the
second this session.
3:57:47 PM
CHRISTY COLLES, Chief of Operations, Division of Mining, Land,
and Water, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska,
stated that SB 133 would allow the department to offer state
land for recreational purposes. It would amend portions of the
existing Remote Recreational Cabin Staking Program statutes to
increase opportunities for Alaska residents to identify a remote
cabin site. It does this by expanding the pool of land where a
person can nominate a staking site to include existing lands
classified as settlements and all vacant, unappropriated or
unreserved land.
MS. COLLES stated that it would also prescribe a process to be
followed by the public and agency when adjudicating a nomination
to lease, purchase, or permit state land for a recreational
place. The bill would provide the commissioner authority to
identify areas where land is properly classified as recreational
sites suitable for disposal as remote sites and offer those
lands for staking. It would also allow Alaskans to nominate land
for disposal and establish a 10-acre parcel that may be staked
by an eligible participant while requiring specific information
for identifying the staked parcels.
3:59:17 PM
MS. COLLES stated that the commissioner could then approve such
disposals at their discretion without a written best interest
finding. SB 133 directs the commissioner to establish
regulations to implement the program. This process requires the
applicant to survey and appraise the site, and for the
commissioner to set the sales price at fair market value.
MS. COLLES indicated that the next component of the bill would
establish a process for leasing a remote recreational site. This
process would provide a timeframe for surveying and appraising
sites as well as a requirement for marking parcel boundaries and
allows for an initial 10-year leasing term and two additional
10-year leasing periods while restricting some of the
assignments or leasing and allowing for termination of a lease
for non-compliance. She stated that this would be a step someone
could take. The last component of the bill would enable the
department to issue a recreational site permit for up to 20
years. This process would allow the commissioner to revoke
permits or terminate them for any reason. Still, the department
would need to adopt regulations to specify lands eligible for a
remote recreational site. Permit holders could apply to lease or
purchase the permanent site during their 25-year permit term.
4:00:47 PM
SENATOR STEVENS related his understanding that this would not
prevent development, but it would require the applicant to build
a remote cabin. He asked what requirements someone who obtains
the property must comply with.
MS. COLLES answered that the department does not require an
applicant to prove up by building a cabin or structure. It was
more about having the property surveyed, appraised, and signing
a contract. One provision in the bill would allow the state to
issue a contract for 30 years instead of 20 years.
4:01:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL raised questions from a previous meeting. He
recalled that one question was the historic average parcel size
for this type of land disposal. He asked whether there was a
public notice when a parcel transitions from being permitted to
being leased.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE asked for a copy of the letter from DNR for
Senator Kiehl.
4:02:44 PM
At ease
4:03:48 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE reconvened the meeting.
4:03:59 PM
MS. COLLES answered that since 2001, 807 of the 937 parcels were
purchased, totaling 10,655 acres. The average parcel size was
13.2 acres. She said if a site were nominated, it would go
through the leasing and sales provisions. She stated that it
would go through the public noticing if the land was not
properly classified, so it depends on the classification of the
land. The commissioner's list of lands that could be sold or
leased is exempt from the best interest finding, but it would
not prevent the department from public noticing.
4:05:27 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the remote recreational site
updates some existing language to include settlements. He
wondered how much extra land the term settlements would
consist of and whether it would double or triple the total
amount authorized under the current cabin staking program.
MS. COLLES answered that she was unsure whether it would double
it. Still, the current remote recreational cabin staking program
might consist of 10,000 acres, but the department would only
allow 100 people to stake a maximum of 20 acres within the area.
She said the department would limit the number of people who
could stake in that area. This would open it up to any
settlement lands or vacant, unappropriated, or reserved land.
She stated that the department had not completely calculated the
amount of land, but she offered to provide it. She envisioned
that the department could increase the number of people who
could go out and stake a parcel. She explained that currently,
the department would write a decision for a specific area with a
maximum number of people who could stake in that area.
4:07:05 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI related his understanding that the department
was unclear about how much larger the settlement land or the
vacant, unappropriated land was compared to the current size of
the staking program.
MS. COLLES responded that she did not have those figures in
front of her today. She offered to provide the information to
the committee.
4:07:32 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI pointed out the department had several staking
programs, including one for personal use cabins for
approximately 150 families dating back to the 1950s, a trapping
cabin permit program, and the remote recreational cabin sites.
He indicated that the programs were complicated because the
staking programs had different rules. He wondered whether there
was a way to consider the staking programs collectively rather
than having programs that overlap.
MS. COLLES agreed that the department had multiple types of
cabin programs. She related that Senator Micciche's bill
regarding the Personal Use Cabin Permit (PUCP) program refers to
cabins built on state land for recreational purposes without
proper authorization. In the 1980s, the department developed a
permitting program to address these recreational cabins, but it
prohibited anyone from building a personal use structure. She
related that the PUCP program would sunset because it disallows
the transfer of properties.
MS. COLLES stated that SB 133 would open the permitting process
to the general public to obtain recreational property. It would
also allow PUCP holders to apply for a 25-year permit and, if
appropriate, move to a lease or purchase. She explained that the
trapping cabin permits were developed in the 1980s solely for
the commercial trapping community and included reduced fees to
allow trappers to live a certain quality of life. She
acknowledged that the department has numerous programs, but they
all have different purposes. She said most are for commercial
purposes, but SB 133 is more specific to personal recreational
use.
4:10:38 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI recalled discovering that the remote
recreational cabin staking was fairly prescriptive when he
worked on a similar bill. He related his understanding that DNR
established rules for people staking land in remote, vacant, or
unappropriated areas because the department might discover later
that the staked land had affected the rights-of-way for nearby
gas or oil leases or within an RS2477 right-of-way. If so, the
cabin might need to be destroyed. He asked whether that could
happen given the department's rules to establish which lands are
available for the existing remote recreational cabin staking
program.
MS. COLLES responded that was why the department would consider
lands classified as settlement lands or vacant and
unappropriated land. She stated that lands with a mineral
classification would not be included in the commissioner's list
of available lands. Further, the department would adopt
regulations to consider RS2477 and other easements. For
instance, if someone wanted to nominate or develop land in an
area, the department would have to perform its due diligence to
ensure there were no conflicts or better use for the state. She
stated that would be part of the adjudication process. The same
thing would be valid for existing personal use cabins. They may
qualify for nominating, but some cabins are in legislatively-
designated areas, so the department cannot dispose of the land
due to their classification.
4:13:15 PM
SENATOR KIEHL recalled that this bill would allow the
commissioner to reclassify any land. He asked what would prevent
a future commissioner from reclassifying mineral land.
MS. COLLES responded that the department has a statutory process
for reclassifying land. She related that it would require a very
prescriptive finding under AS 38.05.945. Thus, if lands are not
correctly classified, the department would go through the
reclassification process, including public noticing and agency
noticing, and be subject to an appeal.
4:14:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that she had referred to AS 38.05.945,
but the bill references reclassification under AS 38.04.065 and
38.05.300. He asked how these processes differ.
MS. COLLES answered you are correct. She explained that those
classification statutes reference AS 38.05.945.
4:15:38 PM
SENATOR KIEHL offered his view that this program is fraught with
issues and is not popular, noting that the department has issued
approximately 37 permits yearly since 2001. He compared that to
DNR's program, which is not a staking program, where the
department selects land, subdivides it, plats, surveys, and
records it. DNR uses several sales mechanisms to sell the land
to Alaskans. He said the program does not have a 14 percent
failure rate like the staking programs. He recalled that the
department sells 200 parcels per year under that program, which
demonstrates how popular that program is to Alaskans. He said
that in keeping with the administration's goal to keep more land
in private ownership, a more productive approach would be for
the department to create cabin subdivisions and sell them. He
offered that doing so would avoid endless reclassification
applications, controversies about recreational land
classification, habitat land, or future use by non-cabin
purposes, and removing the prove-up requirement. He wondered if
it would be more productive for DNR to create cabin subdivisions
and sell them.
4:17:52 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE suggested that each program had different
purposes and that some DNR programs may not be popular in
Southeast Alaska. He indicated that he had participated in
staking programs and had found them quite popular in some areas
of the state. He asked what the department's rationale was for
some programs and why some might be more attractive than others.
4:18:47 PM
MS. COLLES responded that the department created programs for
different purposes. For example, the subdivision sales have a
shared lot line. The Remote Recreational Sites do not have road
access and must be accessed by planes, ATVs, or snowmachines.
She related that those are auctioned with a minimum bid. They
are typically more expensive than the remote recreational cabin
staking sites. She offered her view that the difference relates
to the nomination. She suggested that the department would have
more success with individuals contacting DNR who want to locate
their recreational site in a specific area. Currently, it is
possible to nominate land, but it is not at the same level as
this program. This program would provide a solid path for those
seeking to establish a site, not just through lease or sale, but
by permit. She characterized it as similar to the PUCP, which is
no longer available. She explained that people might want to
think about where to purchase land, and the program provides
another way to decide if the location is an area they are
interested in purchasing.
4:21:02 PM
SENATOR KIEHL responded that it is a little incongruous to point
to the necessity of staking for the more remote areas when SB
133 removes any such requirement.
4:21:28 PM
At ease
4:21:42 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE reconvened the meeting and solicited the
will of the committee.
4:21:48 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to report SB 133, work order 32-GS1026\A,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE found no objection, and SB 133 was reported
from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
4:22:13 PM
At ease
SB 229-STATE HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS; CRIMES
4:24:38 PM
CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 229 "An Act relating to
misconduct involving confidential information; relating to
artifacts of the state; and relating to penalties regarding
artifacts or historic, prehistoric, or archeological resources
of the state."
[CSSB 229(JUD) was before the committee.]
4:25:40 PM
RICKY GEASE, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that
the Office of History & Archaeology, Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation are responsible for administering the
programs in the Alaska Historic Preservation Act. He related
that SB 229, also known as the artifacts bill would amend the
Alaska Historic Preservation Act and the criminal code to
provide protections for historic artifacts through increased
penalties for violations of the act. He said a class C felony
was added as a penalty for a person who, without a permit,
intentionally excavates artifacts from a site with the intent to
sell, but other offenses remain a class A misdemeanor. The bill
amends the civil penalty section by adding a provision for
restitution for damaged and vandalized sites. The department's
goal is to protect Alaska's heritage resources. He offered his
view that the bill would act as a deterrent for unauthorized
actions.
4:27:20 PM
JUDY BITTNER, Chief, History & Archaeology/State Historic
Preservation Officer, Office of History & Archaeology, Alaska
Historical Commission, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, presented
the committee substitute (CS) for SB 229. She paraphrased
remarks, which read:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The committee substitute is a complete re-do of the
bill. A primary intent of the bill is to enhance
protections for historic and archaeological sites
through increased criminal penalties for violations of
the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
Earlier versions of the bill relied on market value of
artifacts to distinguish between a felony and a
misdemeanor. Instead of market value of looted
artifacts, this bill focuses on violations of the
Alaska Historic Preservation Act and the level of loss
of scientific information caused by violations of the
Act through intentional actions and the intent to sell
artifacts.
This orientation of the bill fits more closely with
the policy of the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
The first sentence of the Alaska Historic Preservation
Act reads: It is the policy of the state to preserve
and protect the historic, prehistoric, and
archaeological resources of Alaska from loss,
desecration and destruction so the scientific,
historic and cultural heritage embodied in these
resources may pass undiminished to future generations.
4:29:08 PM
Unauthorized excavation and damage to historic or
archaeological resources destroys the context of the
scientific information contained within that unique
site. Most of the information archaeologists recover
from a site is in the stratigraphic position of the
artifacts and features. Also, the position of
features and artifacts to one another is critical to
understanding a site. If a hearth with charcoal is
found within a site, the charcoal can be dated.
Artifacts associated with the hearth, or in a layer
above or below the hearth can help date and define
distinct cultural eras.
Unauthorized excavation in search of artifacts would
dig right through a hearth feature. That information
is lost forever, once it is disturbed and out of
context.
4:30:09 PM
In the committee substitute a distinction is made at
the penalty level between site disturbance and the
more casual surface collection of artifacts. Removal
of artifacts from a site without a permit with no
ground or site disturbance is a misdemeanor.
Intentional excavation, damage, destruction, or injury
to a site is a class C felony. Also, possessing
artifacts in violation of the Act with the intent to
sell is a class C felony.
Also, in the committee substitute is a provision added
to the civil penalties section that allows for
restitution for damaged or vandalized sites.
Remediation or restoration of a damaged site can take
place by order of the court.
4:31:14 PM
SENATOR STEVENS remarked about the numerous archeologists that
have come to Alaska and acknowledged that Alaska's artifacts
have ended up all around the world in strange places. He
wondered how the department authorizes anthropologists to do
their work without damage to the site.
MS. BITTNER responded that the department authorizes
archeologists to work by issuing a state cultural resources
permit. The permit questions are research related, about the
type of information that the scientist will gather, the extent
of the excavation, and it would require a report. The person
must meet professional qualification standards, which are done
through the permitting process.
4:32:50 PM
SENATOR STEVENS wondered whether excavated artifacts, such as
Native masks, would belong to the state and if they could be
removed and taken out of state or out of the country.
MS. BITTNER answered that a portion of the permit contains a
curation provision. Artifacts and materials removed from the
state belong to the State of Alaska. The division requires that
the artifacts be curated in a state repository. Thus, those
artifacts would go to the museum at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks or the Alaska State Museum in Juneau for long-term
management. If someone wanted to borrow or obtain the artifacts
on loan, they would work with the museum institution.
4:34:21 PM
SENATOR STEVENS thanked her for her years of dedication to the
state.
4:34:27 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the permit for an archeology dig
would be issued as an inclusive permit or for a specific object.
MS. BITTNER answered that the division would typically issue the
permit for a specific site. The artifacts are a portion of the
site. She characterized the archeological site as a three-
dimensional puzzle, and the artifacts are one aspect of it. The
archeologist must have a purpose, such as studying subsistence
practices. The permit requires the researcher to have a
scientific purpose that must also benefit the state to be
considered well-reasoned research. Suppose the office does not
find that the applicant had an adequate reason to conduct the
research, including benefits to the public. In that case, the
department has the discretion to deny the permit for excavating
a site.
4:36:40 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI related a scenario when he was a Boy Scout,
where he and another scout canoed on the Chena River and his
friend pulled a mastodon tusk from a shallow spot. He asked
whether that was illegal.
MS. BITTNER answered yes, that would be illegal. She advised
that the Alaska Preservation Act requires a permit to collect
fossils. She stated that any fossils, including mastodon tusks,
belong to the state. She acknowledged that it is hard to police
that activity, but the department would ask the finder to turn
the fossil over to the state when it is reported. She stated
that it would not be considered an intentional act but one that
the person committed without knowing the Alaska Historic
Preservation provisions.
4:38:16 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that placer miners sometimes find
fossils. He asked whether the miner would be covered under the
self-reporting process. He wondered whether the miner would be
required to pay for damage if the fossil was damaged.
MS. BITTNER responded that the placer miner should set it aside
and report it to DNR.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if the current statute for criminal
penalties has ever been exercised.
MS. BITTNER answered that DNR had had some joint exercises with
law enforcement. She recalled a recent one in Fairbanks, where
some artifacts had been collected from state and federal land
that was recovered. It does not happen often, but it does
happen.
4:40:38 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE stated that the transmittal letter states,
"Under the Alaska Historic Preservation Act currently, the word
artifact is not defined. This bill defines artifact." He asked
for the bill reference that defines artifact.
MS. BITTNER answered that the committee substitute (CS) for SB
229, Version O does not have the definition for artifact. The
definition of "historic, prehistoric, and archeological
resources" includes deposits, structures, ruins, sites,
buildings, graves, artifacts, fossils, or other objects of
antiquity which provide information pertaining to the historical
or prehistorical culture of people in the state as well as to
the natural history of the state.
4:41:41 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE cautioned that the committee had not yet
adopted a committee substitute (CS) for SB 229.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE solicited a motion.
4:42:02 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 229, work order 32-GS2541\O, as a working document.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
4:42:39 PM
At ease
4:42:55 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE reconvened the meeting and invited Ms.
Bittner to give the explanation of changes.
MS. BITTNER paraphrased the explanation of the changes from
Version G to Version O which read:
This bill increases penalties for certain offenses
involving artifacts and adds additional civil
sanctions for those who violate the Alaska Historic
Preservation Act.
Section 1
Section 1 amends the "Unlawful Acts" section to make
it a criminal felony for anyone without a permit
to intentionally harm or destroy a historic,
prehistoric or archaeological resources.
Section 2
Section 2 amends the "Unlawful Acts" section to make
it a criminal felony for anyone to possess with the
intent to sell, or offer to sell a historic,
prehistoric, or archaeological resource acquired in
violation of the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
Section 3
Section 3 adds four new subsections to the "Unlawful
Acts" section.
Subsection (e) and (f) makes it a criminal misdemeanor
for anyone to knowingly possess or remove a historic,
prehistoric, or archaeological resource taken in
violation of the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
Subsections (g) affirms that the offenses under
sections 1 and 2 are class C felonies.
Subsection (h) defines "knowingly" and "intentionally"
by referring to the definitions in the Alaska criminal
statutes.
4:44:42 PM
Section 4
Section 4 amends the "Criminal penalties" section to
note that violations of the Alaska Historic
Preservation Act not included in Sections 1 and 2 are
misdemeanors.
Section 5
Section 5 adds a new subsection that notes where the
Alaska Historic Preservation Act statutes are silent
on the mental state for a criminal offense, the mental
state will be determined based on AS 11.81.610(b).
4:45:16 PM
Section 6
Section 6 amends the "Civil penalties" section by
adding a provision for restitution for damaged or
vandalized sites. The court can order remediation or
restoration of historic, prehistoric, and
archaeological sites that have been excavated,
damaged, defaced, injured or destroyed in violation of
the Alaska Historic Preservation Act.
Section 7
Section 7 adds a section to the uncodified law
consistent with State law that the criminal offenses
and penalties provided in this Act may be charged only
after the Act's effective date. (Note: word
"committee" should be "committed"
Section 8 notes the Act's effective date is July 1,
2022.
4:46:16 PM
SENATOR KIEHL commented that the committee substitute (CS),
Version O, would significantly broaden the items and expand the
felony provisions from Version W. The previous committee, the
Senate Judiciary Committee, considered the penalty provisions.
He asked for the justification for making it a penalty to sell
any historical or natural artifact, regardless of its value. He
acknowledged the importance of protecting valuable historic
sites, Alaska Native relics, and a mastodon tusk. However, this
would include railroad ties and old tiles. He wondered why the
division made that change from Version W.
4:47:45 PM
MS. BITTNER answered that the intent was an attempt to address
the behavior of collecting and destroying the site. She stated
that social media has identified that many people use metal
detectors to locate and subsequently dig up artifacts and sell
them. She noted that the two behaviors together destroy Alaska's
resources.
4:48:39 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE stated that he needs to understand the bill
better. He said Version O seemed to take a very heavy-handed
approach. He expressed concerns that his 12-year-old daughter
would be going to prison for a long time. He stated that it was
not clear what the bill addresses. He offered his view that
every Alaskan family has a little pile of things they have
found. He acknowledged that vandalism was problematic.
4:49:50 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI agreed. He noted that the term "historic" was
used in several sections of the bill, including the class C
felony. He wondered what would be considered historic. For
instance, numerous railroad spikes can be found at the old
railway between the Kennecott Mine and Cordova. He asked whether
that was considered historic. He wondered whether a person could
be charged for possessing railroad spikes.
4:50:56 PM
MS. BITTNER answered that the Alaska Historical Commission
establishes the criteria for identifying historical sites and
applies the criteria through an evaluation process. She noted
that the Alaska statutes have a section that indicates that the
state is entitled to all the historical artifacts on its land.
MS. BITTNER stated that the division would use both in an
evaluation process and determine the context. An isolated spike
taken out of context is not significant. Still, it could be
considered a substantial artifact if it is part of a more
significant archeological or historic site, and people should
leave it in place. She agreed that people might have their pile
of artifacts, which is considered casual removal and is not the
intent or purpose of this bill. SB 229 proposes better
stewardship over Alaska's historic places and leaving artifacts
alone. She emphasized that SB 229 addresses the systematic
destruction, excavation, and vandalism of historic artifacts
with the intent to sell, which DNR would like to deter.
4:53:34 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF wanted to ensure the department wasn't
overboard. She said one's man's junk is another man's treasure.
If a person somehow has the fortitude to travel from Kennecott
to Cordova and picks up discarded railroad spikes or anything
discarded for decades, they could be thanked for cleaning up the
land. She expressed concern that someone who hikes the Chilkoot
Trail and picks up a rusty old tin soup can could be prosecuted.
She acknowledged the importance of preserving arrowheads or
mastodon tusks.
4:54:56 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE asked why people could walk into a tourist
shop in Juneau and purchase a mastodon tusk or items made from
fossilized walrus ivory. He asked whether it was because those
items were not found on state land.
MS. BITTNER answered that it could be that it is not from state
land. She deferred to the Department of Law to respond.
4:56:06 PM
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, Juneau, Alaska,
responded that the Department of Law would review state and
federal law regarding a mastodon tusk.
MR. ORMAN said he could answer some of the questions that were
raised earlier in the hearing. One of the scenarios raised when
this bill was before the Senate Judiciary Committee was someone
on Sandy Beach picking up something from the derelict Treadwell
Mine, and suddenly the person possessed an artifact. The
committee raised that question in a different context today when
it was related that someone picked up a mastodon tusk when
floating the Chena River. Under the current statute, any
violation of the Alaska Heritage Act would result in a
misdemeanor. The idea of this bill was to differentiate some of
the conduct.
MR. ORMAN stated that one big concern was removing artifacts
intending to sell them. He highlighted that Judy Bittner, Office
of History & Archaeology, would like to value these artifacts,
so it makes sense to differentiate the conduct. Thus, if an
individual intentionally destroys a site or intentionally
collects an artifact with the intent to sell, it represents
conduct the state wants to avoid. Although someone who picked up
railroad spikes or some tiles might be violating the letter of
the law and be subject to a misdemeanor, they would not likely
be prosecuted.
4:58:53 PM
MR. ORMAN stated that the bill added provisions to address more
egregious behavior and serve as a general deterrent. He
suggested Ms. Schroeder, Department of Law, who is present
today, related that only two cases had been brought forward
under the current statute. He offered his view that the
Department of Law has significant discretion. Rather than
yielding some crimes, the idea was to impose penalties to serve
as a deterrent to the public, so people would not dig at a
historical or archeological site without a permit. The bill
might also help with egregious situations, with civil offenses
under [AS 41.35.215] would allow for restoration or remediation
of a site that had been improperly excavated.
MR. ORMAN stated that it is possible to purchase a mastodon
tusk, in some cases, because someone obtained a permit and,
through federal or state law, could reach a point where it could
be sold.
5:00:39 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE responded that it is helpful, but it does
not diminish that a child or adult picking an old bolt from
Sandy Beach could be charged with a misdemeanor, which he found
absurd. He agreed that taking an item from a historic Native
site is one thing but taking a bolt from Sandy Beach is another.
He suggested that perhaps this bill should identify that it is
not a misdemeanor to pick up a railroad spike or bolt. He said
that wading into Cook Inlet and picking up a hollowed-out stone
that may have once been an oil lamp is very different from
prying a carving from an obvious archeological historic Native
site. He offered his view that the department seems to be saying
that the committee should ignore the absurdity part and focus on
the potentially egregious behavior, which is hard to do. He was
unsure if the line was that clear.
5:02:33 PM
SENATOR STEVENS commented that this is a complex issue. He said
he keeps thinking about the Native artifacts that are thousands
of years old. He recalled the department differentiates the
behavior based on the intent to sell. He offered his belief that
there was nothing wrong with finding and collecting a fossil at
Fossil Beach in Kodiak, but it would be a violation if the
person were selling it.
5:03:13 PM
MR. ORMAN answered that was correct. He stated that the mental
state was essential to consider. It would be challenging to
satisfy the mental state of knowingly for an individual who
picks up something at Sandy Beach. However, the intent to sell
or deface and excavate a site without a permit would constitute
a felony. He offered his view that the conduct pursuant to the
mental state is what legally avoids the potential for some of
the absurd outcomes that members had expressed concern about.
5:04:55 PM
At ease
5:05:17 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE reconvened the meeting and opened public
testimony on SB 229; he found none, and closed public testimony.
5:06:31 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE withdrew his objection; he found no further
objection, and the committee substitute (CS) for SB 229, Version
O, was adopted as the working document.
[VICE CHAIR MICCICHE held SB 229 in committee.]
5:07:12 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Vice Chair Micciche adjourned the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting at 5:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Glenn Haight CFEC Application_Redacted.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |
|
| Glenn Haight Cover Letter and Resume for CFEC Position_Redacted.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 133 Committee Follow-Up 2.8.22.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB 229 Sponsor Statement 3.10.22.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 229 |
| O.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 229 |
| UFA Letter of Support for Glenn Haight.pdf |
SRES 4/25/2022 3:30:00 PM |