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.