DOCSLIB.ORG

Final RIR Cost Recovery Fee Program for Amendment 80, Groundfsih And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final RIR Cost Recovery Fee Program for Amendment 80, Groundfsih And Final Regulatory Impact Review COST RECOVERY FEE PROGRAM FOR AMENDMENT 80, GROUNDFISH AND HALIBUT/SABLEFISH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA, AND AMERICAN FISHERIES ACT AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS POLLOCK PROGRAMS November 2015 Lead Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Responsible Official: James W. Balsiger, Ph.D. Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region For further information contact: Glenn Merrill, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802 (907) 586-7228 Abstract: This document is a Final Regulatory Impact Review analyzing implementation of a cost recovery fee program for the Amendment 80 Program, the groundfish and halibut/sablefish Community Development Quota Program, the American Fisheries Act Program, and Aleutian Islands Pollock Program. The measures under consideration define the fee structure and fee collection programs. The cost recovery fee may collect up to three percent of the ex-vessel value of species allocated to participants in limited access privilege and CDQ programs. The fee paid by beneficiaries of each program would offset the actual costs agencies incur that are directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of each program that would not have been incurred had the program not been implemented. November 2015 Executive Summary The proposed actions would implement a limited access privilege (LAP) cost recovery fee program for the American Fisheries Act (AFA), Aleutian Islands Pollock, and Amendment 80 Programs. The proposed action would also implement a cost recovery fee program for the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program halibut and groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) authorizes and requires the collection of cost recovery fees for LAP programs and CDQ programs. MSA cost recovery fees may not exceed three percent of the ex-vessel value, and must recover costs associated with the management, data collection, and enforcement of these programs that are directly incurred by government agencies tasked with overseeing these fisheries. Cost recovery fees would be collected from the AFA cooperatives (inshore and mothership sectors), the AFA catcher/processor sector, the Aleut Corporation,1 Amendment 80 cooperatives, and the six CDQ groups. The cost recovery fee percentage would be determined annually by the Regional Administrator of the NMFS Alaska Region (NMFS or Region) and published in a Federal Register notice. Along with the fee percentage, standard ex-vessel prices will be reported in a Federal Register notice for each species directly allocated to the LAP programs or the CDQ Program. Three options are considered to determine standardized prices. Different pricing methodologies may be developed for different cost recovery fee programs, since the mix of species allocated and, therefore, the impacts of selecting prices, varies by program. Implementing a system that relies on data already being collected would reduce the reporting burden on industry and NMFS. Reducing costs incurred by NMFS will help minimize future cost recovery fees that must be paid by persons participating in LAP programs. The first option would require Volume and Value reports to be implemented for all species except CDQ halibut, fixed gear sablefish, and pollock. The second option would use the current IFQ cost recovery reporting system to determine halibut and fixed gear sablefish standard ex-vessel prices. The third option would use Commercial Operator’s Annual Report (COAR) data currently being submitted to the State of Alaska to estimate standard prices. AFA and Aleutian Islands pollock prices will be based on COAR reports to estimate inshore ex-vessel prices using information from the previous year, as requested by members of the AFA. For single species LAP programs this does not affect the fee amount that a person would be required to pay. When the fee does not exceed the three percent cap, the ex-vessel price only changes the fee percentage set by the Regional Administrator. Given the estimates of fee percentages that would be imposed on each program, it is unlikely that using the previous year’s prices would result in the cost recovery fee exceeding three percent of ex-vessel value in any year. NMFS will add total reported landings from January 1 through November 30, and estimate total landings in each year (beginning in 2016) from December 1 through December 31. The total landed pounds will be multiplied by the standard ex-vessel price to determine the gross ex-vessel value of the fishery for each program. NMFS will estimate the recoverable costs for each LAP program and the CDQ Program. The recoverable costs will be divided by the value of the fishery to determine the cost recovery fee percentage for each LAP program and the CDQ Program. This proposed action would establish the following process to determine cost recovery fees: • Calculate standard prices for each fishery species allocated under a program; • Calculate an ex-vessel value of each fishery species allocated under a program by multiplying the standard ex-vessel price by the total amount of landings in each fishery under a program; • Sum the ex-vessel value for each fishery species under a program to calculate the total ex-vessel value for all fisheries landed under a program; • Compile total program costs attributable to each fishery species under a program; 1 During years that the Aleut Corporation fishes its Aleutian Islands pollock allocation. 1 November 2015 • Calculate a fee percentage (not to exceed three percent of the ex-vessel value of a fishery) for the program by dividing total program costs by the total ex-vessel value for all fishery species under the program; and • Assess a fee for each permit holder by multiplying the fee percentage by the total ex-vessel value of the permit holder’s fishery landings under the program. This final figure would be the annual fee owed by each permit holder. This proposed action would establish several requirements applicable to the cost recovery fee programs: • Processors and motherships that receive BSAI Pacific cod harvested under the CDQ Program or by vessels using trawl gear would be required to submit a Pacific Cod Ex-vessel Volume and Value Report to establish the standard price for Pacific cod. • NMFS would use existing reports to establish standard prices for halibut, pollock, and fixed-gear sablefish, thereby eliminating duplicative reporting requirements. • Amendment 80 vessel owners would be required to submit a Wholesale Volume and Value Report to establish standard prices for all other groundfish species. • NMFS would use data from the catch accounting system to determine the total landings subject to cost recovery. • NMFS would base the actual management costs on costs incurred during the most recent fiscal year. • After determining standard prices, total landings, and actual management costs under each program, NMFS would determine the cost recovery fee percentages applicable to each program, and publish the standard prices and a cost recovery fee notice in the Federal Register by December 1 of each year. • NMFS would send each person responsible for a cost recovery fee payment a letter noting their fee liability for the year by December 1 of each year. • Each entity in a program required to submit a cost recovery fee would have to identify a “designated representative” responsible for submitting the fee. • All designated representatives would be required to submit their cost recovery fee payment by December 31 of each year, based on the ex-vessel value of the fish landed during that calendar year. • NMFS would withhold or otherwise limit allocations to an entity if it failed to submit a timely and complete fee payment. NMFS would also establish additional requirements to accommodate specific operational differences that exist among the programs. These are briefly summarized here. AFA Cost Recovery Fee Program The AFA allocates the Bering Sea directed pollock fishery total allowable catch (TAC) to three sectors – catcher/processor, mothership, and inshore. Each sector has established cooperatives to harvest a sector’s allocation. NMFS would establish different fee collection provisions, and fee percentages for the catcher/processor, mothership, and inshore sectors because NMFS recognizes that each of these sectors have slightly different management costs. NMFS estimates that annual fee liabilities for a sector would range from 0.23 percent to 0.72 percent of the ex-vessel value of Bering Sea pollock. Aleutian Islands Pollock Cost Recovery Fee Program The Aleutian Islands Pollock Program allocates the Aleutian Islands directed pollock fishery TAC to the Aleut Corporation, consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-109), and its implementing regulations. Annually, prior to the start of the pollock season, the Aleut Corporation provides NMFS with the identity of its designated representative. This will be responsible for the submission of all cost recovery fees. In recent years, the directed pollock fishery in the Aleutian Islands has not been harvested due to restrictions imposed by Steller sea lion protection measures. Therefore, NMFS has 2 November 2015 reallocated the Aleutian Islands pollock allocation to the AFA Program in the Bering Sea. Pollock reallocated to the Bering Sea is subject to cost recovery
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GAO-13-121, Regional Alaska Native Corporations: Status 40 Years After Establishment, and Future Considerations
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters GAO December 2012 REGIONAL ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATIONS Status 40 Years after Establishment, and Future Considerations GAO-13-121 December 2012 REGIONAL ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATIONS Status 40 Years after Establishment, and Future Considerations Highlights of GAO-13-121, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Incorporated under Alaska state law, regional Alaska Native corporations share Settlement Act was enacted to resolve fundamental characteristics, although they have chosen a variety of governance long-standing aboriginal land claims practices. Like other Alaska corporations, the regional corporations are subject to and to foster economic development the state’s corporate laws (with limited exceptions) and are run by an elected for Alaska Natives. This federal law board of directors. Nevertheless, each regional corporation has chosen its own directed that corporations be created organization and governance approach in terms of board operations, executive under Alaska state law, which were to and board compensation, board elections, and shareholder involvement. be the vehicles for distributing the settlement. As directed by the act, Alaska Native corporations are subject to some financial reporting requirements 12 for-profit regional corporations were under federal and state law, but oversight of the reporting is limited. The Alaska established, representing geographical Native Claims Settlement Act generally exempts the corporations from complying regions in the state. Later, a with federal securities laws while requiring them to annually provide a report to 13th regional corporation was formed their shareholders that contains “substantially all the information” required to be to represent Alaska Natives residing included in an annual report to shareholders by U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 45 YEARS of REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT We
    ANCSA 1971-2016 ................................. CELEBRATING 45 YEARS OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT We................................... Are ANCSA ANCSA Regional Corporations, as unique as the people we represent. Arctic Slope NANA Doyon Bering Straits Calista Ahtna Chugach CIRI Bristol Bay Sealaska Koniag Aleut 2016 ANCSA Economic Report Message from ANCSA Regional Association.......................................04 Board of Directors..................................................................05 Building Sustainable Futures Celebrating 45 Years of ANCSA....................................................06 What Everyone Should Know About ANCSA Corporations. 08 Financial Results for 2011-2015.....................................................11 Alaska Regional Corporations • Mission and Business Activities Ahtna, Incorporated................................................................17 Aleut Corporation..................................................................18 Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.................................................19 Bering Straits Native Corporation..................................................20 Bristol Bay Native Corporation.....................................................21 Calista Corporation.................................................................22 Chugach Alaska Corporation.......................................................23 CIRI................................................................................24 Doyon, Limited.....................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America
    S. 1325 One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two An Act To ratify an agreement between The Aleut Corporation and the United States of America to exchange land rights received under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for certain land interests on Adak Island, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Congress finds that: (1) Adak Island is an isolated island located 1,200 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska, between the Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea. The Island, with its unique physical and biological features, including a deep water harbor and abundant marine-associated wildlife, was recognized early for both its natural and military values. In 1913, Adak Island was reserved and set aside as a Preserve because of its value to seabirds, marine mammals, and fisheries. Withdrawals of portions of Adak Island for various military purposes date back to 1901 and culminated in the 1959 withdrawal of approximately half of the Island for use by the Department of the Navy for military purposes. (2) By 1990, military development on Adak Island sup- ported a community of 6,000 residents. Outside of the Adak Naval Complex, there was no independent community on Adak Island. (3) As a result of the Defense Base Closure and Realign- ment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 1808), as amended, the Adak Naval Complex has been closed by the Department of Defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Impact Review / Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to Amend Regulations for Participants in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Regulatory Areas
    Regulatory Impact Review / Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to Amend Regulations for Participants in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Regulatory Areas. COST RECOVERY FROM AMENDMENT 80, GROUNDFISH AND HALIBUT/SABLEFISH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT QUOTA, AMERICAN FISHERIES ACT AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS POLLOCK QUOTA RECIPIENTS, AND THE FREEZER LONGLINE COALITION Second Review Draft September 2013 Lead Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Responsible Official: James Balsiger, Administrator Alaska Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service For further information contact: X, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802 (907) 586-XXXX Abstract: This document is a Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis analyzing implementation of a cost recovery program from the Amendment 80 program, the groundfish and halibut/sablefish Community Development program, the American Fisheries Act program, and the Freezer Longline Coalition. The measures under consideration would define the fee structure to collect of up to 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of species allocated to participants in these programs. The fee paid by beneficiaries of each program would offset the actual costs agencies incur that are directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of each program that would not have been incurred had the program not been implemented. i Executive Summary The proposed actions would, first, implement a Limited Access Permit (LAP) program cost recovery fee for the American Fisheries Act (AFA) and Aleutian Islands (AI) pollock, Amendment 80, Community Development Quota (CDQ) program for halibut and groundfish, and the Freezer Longline Coalition (FLC) for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Pacific cod, programs as required under the MSA.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Native
    To conduct a simple search of the many GENERAL records of Alaska’ Native People in the National Archives Online Catalog use the search term Alaska Native. To search specific areas or villages see indexes and information below. Alaska Native Villages by Name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Alaska is home to 229 federally recognized Alaska Native Villages located across a wide geographic area, whose records are as diverse as the people themselves. Customs, culture, artwork, and native language often differ dramatically from one community to another. Some are nestled within large communities while others are small and remote. Some are urbanized while others practice subsistence living. Still, there are fundamental relationships that have endured for thousands of years. One approach to understanding links between Alaska Native communities is to group them by language. This helps the student or researcher to locate related communities in a way not possible by other means. It also helps to define geographic areas in the huge expanse that is Alaska. For a map of Alaska Native language areas, see the generalized map of Alaska Native Language Areas produced by the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. Click on a specific language below to see Alaska federally recognized communities identified with each language. Alaska Native Language Groups (click to access associated Alaska Native Villages) Athabascan Eyak Tlingit Aleut Eskimo Haida Tsimshian Communities Ahtna Inupiaq with Mixed Deg Hit’an Nanamiut Language Dena’ina (Tanaina)
    [Show full text]
  • Sharon Guenther Lind 907-786-4166 Term Assistant Professor College of Business and Public Policy
    Sharon Guenther Lind 907-786-4166 Term Assistant Professor College of Business and Public Policy Bio - Sharon Guenther Lind Lind is an Aleut born and raised in Kenai, Alaska. Lind's area of study is the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the Alaska Native corporations it created. Lind has been involved with the management of the Aleut Corporation since the early 90's in many different roles, from management to board member. From 2006 - 2011, Lind led the company as Chairman of the Board. She is also a shareholder of the Axtam Corporation, the Atka village corporation. Lind acquired her MBA from the University ofAlaska Anchorage and is currently pursuing her PhD in Indigenous studies with a concentration in Indigenous leadership at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Currently Lind teaches undergraduate Organizational Behavior and classes within the newly developed Alaska Native Business Management minor area; a minor Lind helped create in UAA's College of Business and Public Policy. Education ~ Accepted into the University of Alaska Fairbanks PhD program Spring 2013. Pursuing a PhD from the UAF Rural Development Indigenous Studies program. ~ Master's in Business Administration, University of Alaska Anchorage ~ BS Business Administration with minor in mathematics and an emphasis in management, Warner Pacific College, Portland, Oregon. Papers: Co-Authored with Dr. George Geistauts 'The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporation: A Case Example for Indigenous Peoples' Business Development?" and presented the paper at the Annual Hawaii International Business Research Conference and the 2013 First Annual Alaska Native Studies Conference: Transforming the University in the 21 51 Century.
    [Show full text]
  • Read More About Arctic and International Relations Series Here
    Fall 2018, Issue 6 ISSN 2470-7414 Arctic and International Relations Series Bridging the Gap between Arctic Indigenous Communities and Arctic Policy: Unalaska, the Aleutian Islands, and the Aleut International Association EAST ASIA CENTER Contents PART 1: INTRODUCTIONS AND OVERVIEW 5 Bridging the Gap between Arctic Indigenous Communities and Arctic Policy: Unalaska, the Aleutian Islands, and the Aleut International Association Nadine Fabbi 6 South Korea’s Role as an Observer State on the Arctic Council and Its Contribution to Arctic Indigenous Societies 10 Minsu Kim Introduction to the Aleut International Association 16 Liza Mack Aleut vs. Unangan: Two Notes on Naming 18 Qawalangin Tribal Council of Unalaska Shayla Shaishnikoff PART 2: UNALASKA HISTORY AND ALEUT GOVERNANCE 21 Unalaska and Its Role in the Fisheries: Resources of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 22 Frank Kelty The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Tribes, and the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act 25 Liza Mack Qawalangin Tribal Council of Unalaska 30 Tom Robinson with Joanne Muzak Qawalangin Tribal Council of Unalaska’s Environmental Department 33 Chris Price with Joanne Muzak My Internship at the Qawalangin Tribe 37 Shayla Shaishnikoff A Brief History of Unalaska and the Work of the Ounalashka Corporation 38 Denise M. Rankin The Work of the Aleut International Association 41 Liza Mack PART 3: UNALASKA: PLACE AND PEOPLE 43 The Flora of Unalaska and Unangan Use of Plants 44 Sharon Svarny-Livingston Fresh, Delicious Lettuce in Unalaska: Meet Blaine and Catina
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Area Native Health Service: Description of the Program
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Health Sciences Center Archives and Special Native Health Database Full Text Collections 1979 Alaska Area Native Health Service: description of the program. Indian Health Service, Alaska Area Native Health Service Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nhd Recommended Citation Indian Health Service, Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage, AK. Alaska Area Native Health Service: description of the program. 1979 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Health Sciences Center Archives and Special Collections at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Native Health Database Full Text by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. '/10 };J13 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM ALASKA ·AREA NATIVE HEALTH SERVICE Department'ofHealth & ryelfat'.e Publ'c Health Service • Health Services Administration . \ Indian H~ltb~t'liit~~ llaskaAreaNative Health Se;vice '~ - - ,..­ • , .,a About this publication. • • • The Alaska Area Native Health Service has prepared this publication to provide current informa­ tion on the health status of the Alaska Native people and the programs which the Alaska Area Native Health Service are working with to fill those needs. Exciting developments and innovations have taken place in the Health Care Delivery Program. The Community Health Aide Program has proven to be one of the most accepted and cost effec­ tive programs developed in recent years in Alaska. Increased efforts have been made in the area of consumer involvement and participation in the Health Care Program. The Alaska Area Native Health Service has been instrumental in assisting the development of Regional Health Corpora­ tions in the 12 regional areas of Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Conclusions, Bibliography
    Conclusions After the Attuans were taken to Japan, their village was occupied by Japanese troops and was destroyed by American bombing (Garfield 1995:213–214). On other parts of the island, the U.S. military left behind the remains of structures including tunnels used for storage. In 1987 a “peace memorial” was installed to honor all the soldiers who died at Attu, and in 1993 a sign was placed to commemorate the Attu villagers’ wartime ordeal. The island of Attu has remained uninhabited. There is nothing left of the wooden houses, the school, church, or the barabaras that were still in use in 1942. A Coast Guard Loran (long-range navigation system) station operated there in 1961 and was staffed by 20 personnel. It was closed in 2010 after the Global Positioning System (GPS) replaced Loran as a navigational system for ships and aircraft. As Jennifer Jolis wrote almost two decades ago, Periodically the island is visited by fishermen or by interested naturalists, biologists, and archeologists, usually in the employ of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The buildings and bridges built by the Navy are disappearing, each year the wind and waves take back the land. Each spring the grasses continue to wave, the eiders to sound their lonely calls. A lone eagle flies over Temnac Valley. The people are gone. The island remains. ( Jolis 1994:30). Commentary 145 Bibliography Bank II, Ted 1956 Birthplace of the Winds. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co. Bateman, Annaliese Jacobs 2005 Aleutian Atlantis: Travel, Tragedy, and the Tricks of Memory on Attu Island, 1936-1945.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Native Corporation Endowment Models
    OE - SNIGAROFFRICHARDS (DO NOT DELETE) 5/10/2021 6:42 PM ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATION ENDOWMENT MODELS ROBERT SNIGAROFF* AND CRAIG RICHARDS** ABSTRACT*** New settlement trust provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 have significant implications for Alaska Native Corporation (ANC) business longevity and the appropriateness of an operating business model given ANC goals as stated in their missions. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) authorized the creation of for-profit corporations for the benefit of Alaska Native shareholders. But for Alaska Natives, cultural continuation was and continues to be a desired goal. Considering the typical life span of U.S. corporations and the inevitability of eventual failure, the for-profit corporate model is inconsistent with aspects of the ANC mission. Settlement trust amendments to ANCSA facilitate ANC cultural continuation goals solving the problem of business viability risk. We make a normative case that ANCs should consider increasing endowment business activity. We also discuss the Alaska Permanent Fund and lessons that those structuring settlement trusts might learn from literature on sovereign wealth funds and endowments. Copyright © 2021 by Robert Snigaroff and Craig Richards. * Robert Snigaroff, BS, Warner Pacific College; MBA, University of Southern California; Ph.D., University of Alaska Fairbanks, Economic Sociology. Robert Snigaroff is a shareholder and former director at both Aleut and Atxam Corporations (regional and village corporations). He leads the institutional asset management firm Denali Advisors he founded, and has published research in finance, investments, and financial economics journals. ** Craig Richards, BS in Commerce, Concentration in Finance, University of Virginia; JD, Washington & Lee University; MBA, Duke University.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Peninsula Bibliography of Geological Research Ric Wilson, USGS Anchorage, AK from Open File Report 1986 Updated, but Not Necessarily Complete for 1986-1990
    Alaska Peninsula Bibliography of Geological Research Ric Wilson, USGS Anchorage, AK From Open File Report 1986 Updated, but not necessarily complete for 1986-1990 "Abbot, C.G., and Fowle, F.E., 1913, Volcanoes and climate: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, v. 60, no. 29, 24 p." "Abrahamson, S.R., 1949, Geography of the Naknek region, Alaska: Worcester, Mass., Clark University, Ph.D. dissertation, 148 p." "Addicott, W.O., 1971, Tertiary marine mollusks of Alaska: An annotated bibliography: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1343, 30 p. "Addicott, W.O., 1973, Neogene marine mollusks of the Pacific coast of North America: An annotated bibliography, 1797-1969: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1362, 210 p." "Addicott, W.O., 1977, Significance of pectinids in Tertiary biochronology of the Pacific Northwest states [abs.]: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 9, no. 7, p. 874." "Alaska Construction and Oil, 1984, Petroleum update: Alaska Construction and Oil, v. 25, no. 8, p. 164." "Alaska Construction and Oil, 1984, Unga Island mining data announced: Alaska Construction and Oil, v. 25, no. 3, p. 31." "Alaska Department of Mines, 1949, Report of the Commissioner of Mines for the Biennium ended December 31, 1948: Alaska Department of Mines, 50 p." "Alaska Department of Mines, 1951, Report of the Commissioner of Mines for the Biennium ended December 31, 1950: Alaska Department of Mines, 57 p." "Alaska Department of Mines, 1953, Report of the Commissioner of Mines for the Biennium ended December 31, 1952: Alaska Department
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:06-Cv-02173-CKK Document 13 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 47
    Case 1:06-cv-02173-CKK Document 13 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 47 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF ISLANDS ) ASSOCIATION, INC. ) 201 E. 3rd Avenue ) Anchorage, Alaska 99501 ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) v. ) ) DIRK KEMPTHORNE, in his official capacity as ) Secretary of the Interior, ) U.S. Department of the Interior ) 1849 C. Street, N.W. ) Washington, DC 20240 ) ) NILES CESAR, in his official capacity as ) Regional Director, Alaska Region, ) Bureau of Indian Affairs, ) U.S. Department of the Interior; ) Civil Action No. 06-2173 (CKK) 709 W. 9th St. ) Juneau, Alaska 99802 ) ) BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS ) OFFICE OF SELF-GOVERNANCE, ) U.S. Department of the Interior, ) 1849 C. Street, N.W., MS 4140 MIB ) Washington, DC 20240 ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association ("APIA"), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully move pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary judgment in APIA's favor. The essential facts of this case, as set forth in the accompanying Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute, have not been Case 1:06-cv-02173-CKK Document 13 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 47 contested by the Defendants. Therefore, as demonstrated in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, APIA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, APIA asks that this Court enter judgment as follows: (1) Declaring that the thirteen Alaska tribes on whose behalf APIA entered a compact
    [Show full text]