Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/17/2020 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB152 | |
| SB55 | |
| SB137 | |
| SB150 | |
| SB47 | |
| SB30 | |
| HB122 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 122 am
"An Act relating to the Funter Bay marine park unit of
the state park system; relating to protection of the
social and historical significance of the Unangax
cemetery located in Funter Bay and providing for the
amendment of the management plan for the Funter Bay
marine park unit; and providing for an effective
date."
9:49:03 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof read the title of the bill. She relayed
that the committee was hearing the bill for the first time.
9:49:33 AM
AT EASE
9:50:03 AM
RECONVENED
REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN, SPONSOR, addressed a
presentation entitled "HB 122 - FUNTER BAY MARINE PARK:
UNANGAN CEMETARY" (copy on file).
Representative Hannan showed slide 2, "HB 122 will":
? Provide protection of the Unangan Cemetery in Funter
Bay for future generations;
? Transfer cemetery site and surrounding area from
Division of Land Mining and Water (DNR) to the
Division of Parks and Recreation (DNR) - ;
? Transferred land will become part of, and continued
to be maintained by, as part of the Funter Bay Marine
Park.
9:51:05 AM
Representative Hannan turned to slide 3, which showed a map
of Juneau and the surrounding area. She explained that the
area of the park was located on the Mansfield Peninsula of
Admiralty Island, which by air was about 15 miles west. She
explained that the cemetary started with World War II. On
June 3 and 4 of 1942, the Japanese attacked the United
States Naval Base at Dutch Harbor. On June 7 and June 8,
the Japanese invaded Kiska, where U.S. Navy personnel were
captured. The Japanese also invaded Attu, and Native
residents were captured and retained until the end of the
war.
Representative Hannan continued to discuss the history of
the area. She cited that by June 12, the commanding general
for Alaska had issued orders to begin removing Alaskans,
starting with residents of St. Paul and St. George in the
Pribilof Islands. The military was ordered to burn
dwellings in advance of the enemy's movement. Villagers
were forced to evacuate on short notice. On June 16, 1942,
560 residents of St. Paul and St. George were evacuated by
ship. The villagers were taken across the Gulf of Alaska
and left at an abandoned cannery and mine site in Funter
Bay.
9:52:37 AM
Representative Hannan looked at slide 6, which showed a map
of Southeast Alaska from Prince of Wales Island to Juneau.
She detailed that there were additional voyages from other
villages and a total of six relocation camps. The camp at
Funter Bay had the highest death rate. The cannery had not
been operational for a decade before the residents were
left there and was not intended for year-round occupation.
She discussed the deplorable conditions with limited access
to fresh water, medicine, and food. She continued that
there were technically two camps in Funter Bay that shared
one cemetery.
9:53:23 AM
Representative Hannan reviewed slide 5, which showed a
photograph of a grave and a photograph of building ruins:
Old Bunk House used for housing (above).
Head stone of 18 month old child that died at camp
(left).
Representative Hannan discussed slide 6, which also showed
a map of the area. She explained that there were 30 known
grave sites in the cemetery, but it was understood there
were many unmarked graves. She explained that the issue was
78 years in the making, and people whose families were
buried there had been asking for the protection of the land
for decades.
9:54:51 AM
Representative Hannan explained that other relocation camps
in Southeast Alaska were located closer to communities. The
Killisnoo property near Angoon also had a cemetery, which
was on private land. She explained that concerns had been
escalated when seven years previously, access to the
Killisnoo cemetery had been truncated by the new property
owners. Families of relatives buried in Funter Bay asked
for protections in order to continue to visit gravesites in
Funter Bay.
Representative Hannan showed slide 4, which showed the
state park that was created by former Senator Frank Zharoff
in 1983. The land was a marine park that included tidelands
and uplands, but was mostly the protected waterways. She
pointed out the delineation on the map, and identified the
cemetery. She explained that the transfer would incorporate
the remainder of the state parcel that existed as an island
between the two parklands that existed.
9:55:45 AM
Senator Wilson asked if the bill would close off the area
in question, or if the intent was for cultural protection
and upkeep of the area.
Representative Hannan explained that the bill did not close
off the area, nor was there intent to develop. The bill
would prevent development and the sale for mining purposes.
She explained that there was currently no development at
the state park, and most people that visited stayed aboard
vessels. She described that the parcel with the cemetery
was a dark and dreary swampy lowland and was not typically
used for hunting or foraging. The lands were not well
maintained, and the families seeking the protection desired
the land and public access be secured.
9:57:18 AM
Senator Olson asked the sponsor how the bill would affect
owners of private property in Funter Bay.
Representative Hannan specified that the bill would not
change any private property land holdings nor did it
restrict access. The parcel was adjacent to the property
that was formerly the cannery. She thought the property was
owned by Reed Stoops, who had submitted a letter of support
for the bill. There were about six landowners in front of
the cemetery, and the other large stretch of private
property was on the opposite side of the bay where the old
mine was. Private property rights and access would not be
changed by the park expansion, and the properties were not
in the parcel.
9:58:23 AM
Senator Olson asked if any of the adjacent private land
owners had voiced any objection to the bill.
Representative Hannan answered in the negative.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if the private landowners were
free to develop the land surrounding the cemetery in any
way that was desired.
Representative Hannan answered in the affirmative.
9:58:42 AM
Co-Chair Stedman observed two islands on the map on slide 4
that looked as if they were colored yellow for inclusion in
the park expansion. He also asked if there were proposed
changes to submerged lands.
Representative Hannan deferred the question to the Division
of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
Senator Olson had a question about private ownership. He
thought there were conditions existing when private
ownership was given.
9:59:44 AM
Co-Chair Stedman repeated his question regarding the
islands shown on the map on slide 4 - one island in the
back of the bay and a smaller island to the west. He asked
why the islands would be included in the park designation.
PRESTON KROES, SUPERINTENDENT, DIVISION OF PARKS AND
OUTDOOR RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), explained that although the yellow shaded
area on the map showed a peninsula that only became an
island at an extremely high tide. The pensinsula was all
that remained of the Division of Mining, Land, and Water
(DMLW) property. The division had determined that it would
relinquish all of the parcel instead of just keeping the
two small islands, which would have become a management
challenge.
Co-Chair Stedman asked why the state did not consider
selling the islands.
Mr. Kroes thought the question would be better addressed by
DMLW. The parcel was currently managed for recreation, and
was designated to be managed as the adjacent parklands were
managed.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how many parcels were virtually in
holdings in the proposed park expansion.
Ms. Kroes stated that private land was excluded from the
parcel. There were six to eight landowners nearby, many of
whom had spoken in support of the bill in previous
hearings. The parcels would remain in status quo with
regard to lease or ownership.
10:03:05 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the islands to the west. He
asked if the islands were already in the park.
Mr. Kroes answered in the affirmative. He mentioned the
Kitten Islands. He mentioned there was two smaller islands
within the bay that were currently part of the state marine
park.
10:03:38 AM
Senator Wielechowski understood that the Division of Parks
and Outdoor Recreation supported the bill.
Mr. Kroes stated that the division supported the bill. He
had been approached by the group Friends of Admiralty
Island, which included decedents of people that had been
interned in Funter Bay. The group wanted to maintain access
for descendants in the future. He stated that the division
and stakeholders supported the bill.
10:04:40 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked about allowable use of the private
land parcels around the proposed park, per comments by
Senator Olson.
Mr. Kroes restated that the parcels were staying as-is,
were not included in the land exchange, and with current
ownership conditions remaining intact. He did not know how
many separate parcels there were but there was no impact to
the parcels.
10:05:46 AM
RICKY GEASE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR
RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), testified that Alaska State Parks
supported the bill. The agency had been working with many
organizations and individuals to find a better way to
manage and protect the historical and cultural resources.
He explained that currently the DMLW land was managed for
recreation and not for mineral or timber resources. There
parks division had an inter-agency land management
agreement with the DLWD to manage the lands for recreation
as units of the park. He thought it was important to
remember that while most of the area where there were
graves there were markers, there was most likely also
adjacent areas with unmarked graves, and the bill would
protect the area in perpetuity.
Mr. Gease continued his testimony. He stated it had been
his and the agencies privilege to coordinate and work with
a diverse group of interested parties. The department
supported protection for the cemetery, and in recognition
of the hardship imposed on the people from St. George and
St. Paul in Funter Bay during World War II. He thought the
land would be easier to manage under one agency within the
Department of Natural Resources.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if Mr. Gease had any further
comments on the bill.
Mr. Gease thought all the topics had been covered. He
remarked that the two previous hearings on the bill there
had been direct descendants from St. Paul and St. George
present, including elders that travelled to attend. He
emphasized that there was great support for the bill to
ensure protection of the cemetery area.
10:08:57 AM
Co-Chair Stedman did not think there was any interest in
hindering the cemetery. He was appalled that an individual
in Angoon was prohibiting access to a cemetery. He pondered
that the individual was not from the area. He noted that
much of Southeast was a park, and there was very little
private or state land within the Tongass National Forest.
He was concerned with over-restricting development and also
with losing cultural and heritage sites. He thought there
was not a lot of cultural sites that were not known. He
supported protecting the cemetery. His only concern was
about the island and wondered why it was not up for sale.
He wanted to suggest that the committee review the access
issue to the cemetery near Angoon.
10:11:03 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair von Imhof CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Stedman reviewed FN 2 from the Department of
Natural Resources, OMB Component 3001. He relayed that it
was a zero fiscal note. He commented that the note should
have been negative, because money was left on the table by
not selling the island.
Co-Chair von Imhof set the bill aside. She asked members to
contact her office with any concerns or amendments.
HB 122 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair von Imhof was unsure about the schedule for the
afternoon meeting. The following day the committee would
hear public testimony on the operating and capital budgets.