DOCSLIB.ORG

OHV Use for Maintenance Along the Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
OHV Use for Maintenance Along the Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture OHV Use for Maintenance along the Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Environmental Assessment Forest Service Tongass National Forest Ala ska Region Wrangell Ranger District R10-MB-810a June 2017 Primary Contact: Responsible Official: David Rak M. Earl Stewart Wrangell Ranger District Forest Supervisor 525 Bennett Street Tongass National Forest Wrangell, AK 99929 Federal Building 907-874-2323 Ketchikan, AK 99901 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer. OHV Use for Maintenance along the Tyee Electrical Transmission Line 1.0 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Purpose and Need........................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Management Direction ................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Decision To Be Made ...................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Public Participation ......................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Issues and Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Issues ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Management, Monitoring, and Mitigation Measures .................................................. 21 3.0 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 23 3.1 Soils and Wetlands ........................................................................................................ 23 3.2 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................... 39 3.4 Aquatic Resources......................................................................................................... 46 3.5 Subsistence Resources .................................................................................................. 50 3.6 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 51 3.7 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 51 3.8 Other Resources............................................................................................................ 52 4.0 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 53 4.1 Soils and Wetlands ........................................................................................................ 53 4.2 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 59 4.3 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................... 63 4.4 Aquatic Resources......................................................................................................... 65 4.5 Subsistence Resources .................................................................................................. 73 4.6 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 74 4.7 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 74 4.8 Other Resources............................................................................................................ 75 5.0 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................ 76 6.0 References Cited ............................................................................................................... 78 7.0 Preparers ........................................................................................................................... 81 Appendix A Mitigation and Monitoring Measures Appendix B Field-verified Characteristics of Proposed Stream Crossings in Segments A through I OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page iii Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx List of Figures Figure 1.2-1. Project Area. ......................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1.2-2. Argo OHV (left) and landing craft (right). ............................................................. 3 Figure 2.2-1. Segment A........................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2.2-2. Segment B........................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2.2-3. Segment C........................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2.2-4. Segment D. ......................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2.2-5. Segment E. .......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 2.2-6. Segment F. .......................................................................................................... 17 Figure 2.2-7. Segment G. ......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2.2-8. Segment H. ......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2.2-9. Segment I. ........................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3.1-1. Log mats.............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 3.1-2. Recreational ATV tracks in western portion of Segment C. ............................... 24 Figure 3.1-3. Recreational ATV tracks in Segment I. ............................................................... 25 Figure 3.1-4. Recreational ATV tracks in Segment H near Access Point AP-H2. ..................... 25 Figure 3.1-5. Recreational ATV tracks in Segment H. .............................................................. 26 OHV Usage for Tyee Electrical Transmission Line Maintenance EA Page iv Q:\Projects\SEAPA TLine\NEPA\FinalEa\June2017ver\SEAPA FinalEA 6-1-17clean.docx List of Tables Table 3.1-1. Soils crossed by the ROW in each segment. ...................................................... 28 Table 3.1-2. Soil series and descriptions. ............................................................................... 29 Table 3.1-3. Wetland acreage within the project area. ......................................................... 31 Table 3.2-1. Sensitive plants known or suspected to occur on the Petersburg or Wrangell Ranger District. ................................................................................................... 32 Table 3.2-2. AKNHP rare species observed in the project area. ............................................ 32 Table 3.2-3. Invasive species documented in the project area, and estimated acreage. ...... 35 Table 3.2-4. Invasive species occurrences on NFS land by segment and Forest Service priority. ............................................................................................................... 37 Table 3.2-5. Invasive species occurrences in Wrangell Borough, highlighting treatment priorities. ............................................................................................................ 38 Table 3.2-6. Invasive species occurrences in Petersburg Borough, highlighting treatment priority. ............................................................................................................... 39 Table 3.2-7. Threatened and endangered wildlife species under the jurisdiction of NMFS. 40 Table 3.2-8. Threatened, endangered,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alaska Tideland Surveys
    Alaska Tideland Surveys “Who, What, When, Where, How, Why” A Paper Presented at the th 37 Annual Alaska Surveying and Mapping Conference By Gerald Jennings, P.L.S., and Joe Kemmerer, P.L.S. February, 2002 State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining, Land and Water, Technical and Data Management 550 West 7th Ave, Suite 650 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3576 (907) 269-8523 Fax (907) 269-8914 ii ABSTRACT Alaska Tideland Surveys – the 5 w’s. Surveys of tideland parcels are unique in several ways. Typically all corners are monumented with witness corners. DNR is usually the fee owner of the parcel, and the landward boundary is usually the mean high water line. Frequently, the line is fixed and limiting, because of avulsion, or placement of fill. This paper will briefly discuss how an applicant applies for a tideland lease or conveyance and how to conduct the survey and obtain state approval. Presenter: Gerald Jennings The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Technical and Data Management staff dealing with Alaska Tideland Surveys: Gerald Jennings, P.L.S., Statewide Platting Supervisor Joe Kemmerer, P.L.S., Coastal Boundary. William (Bill) Brown, P.L.S., Riparian Specialist iii Alaska Tideland Surveys Introduction – who what why? Title to most of the tide and submerged lands surrounding Alaska was vested in the State of Alaska under the Submerged Lands Act of May 22, 1953. Most of those lands remain in state ownership and in most cases, the state will lease, but retain fee title. As a surveyor, you will be contacted about Alaska Tideland Surveys (ATS) by a public or private party who desires to lease or acquire tidelands for various reasons such as construction of docks, bridges, harbors, log transfer facilities, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Southeast Alaska Mid-Region Access Port and Ferry Terminal Technical Memorandum
    S A M-R A P Ferr T T M Prepared for Fr Highw An Through R Pecci Associates, I. 825 Custer Avenue Helena, Montana 59604 (406)447-5000 www.rpa-hln.com Prepared by T Gos Associates, I. 1201 Western Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98101 www.glosten.com Pametri, I. 700 NE Multnomah, Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97232-4110 T. 503.233.2400 F, 503.233.4825 www.parametrix.com CITATION The Glosten Associates, Inc., Parametrix, Inc. 2011. Southeast Alaska Mid-Region Access Port and Ferry Terminal Technical Memorandum. Prepared by The Glosten Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington, Parametrix, Inc., Portland, Oregon. April 2011. Port and Ferry Terminal Technical Memorandum TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Mid-Region Access Study ......................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Southeast Alaska Mid-Region Access Study Corridors ..................................................... 1-3 1.2.1 Bradfield Canal Corridor ....................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2 Stikine River Corridor ........................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.3 Aaron Creek Corridor............................................................................................ 1-5 1.3 Characteristics
    [Show full text]
  • The City of Petersburg WWTP, NPDES Permit #AK0021458
    FACT SHEET United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 Park Place Building, 13th Floor 1200 Sixth Avenue, OW-130 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 553-0523 Date: Permit No.: AK-002145-8 PROPOSED REISSUANCE OF A NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT TO DISCHARGE POLLUTANTS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) The City of Petersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant 1404 North 14th Street Petersburg, Alaska 99833 has applied for reissuance of a NPDES permit to discharge pollutants pursuant to the provisions of the CWA. This Fact Sheet includes (a) the tentative determination of the EPA to reissue the permit, (b) information on public comment, public hearing and appeal procedures, (c) the description of the current discharge, (d) a listing of tentative effluent limitations, schedules of compliance and other conditions, and (e) a sketch or detailed description of the discharge location. We call your special attention to the technical material presented in the latter part of this document. Persons wishing to comment on the tentative determinations contained in the proposed permit reissuance may do so by the expiration date of the Public Notice. All written comments should be submitted to EPA as described in the Public Comments Section of the attached Public Notice. After the expiration date of the Public Notice, the Director, Water Division, will make final determinations with respect to the permit reissuance. The tentative determinations contained in the draft permit will become final conditions if no substantive comments are received during the Public Notice period. The proposed NPDES permit and other related documents are on file and may be inspected at the above address any time between 8:30 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • 25 JUL 2021 Index Aaron Creek 17385 179 Aaron Island
    26 SEP 2021 Index 401 Angoon 17339 �� � � � � � � � � � 287 Baranof Island 17320 � � � � � � � 307 Anguilla Bay 17404 �� � � � � � � � 212 Barbara Rock 17431 � � � � � � � 192 Index Anguilla Island 17404 �� � � � � � � 212 Bare Island 17316 � � � � � � � � 296 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Ser- Bar Harbor 17430 � � � � � � � � 134 vice � � � � � � � � � � � � 24 Barlow Cove 17316 �� � � � � � � � 272 Animas Island 17406 � � � � � � � 208 Barlow Islands 17316 �� � � � � � � 272 A Anita Bay 17382 � � � � � � � � � 179 Barlow Point 17316 � � � � � � � � 272 Anita Point 17382 � � � � � � � � 179 Barnacle Rock 17401 � � � � � � � 172 Aaron Creek 17385 �� � � � � � � � 179 Annette Bay 17428 � � � � � � � � 160 Barnes Lake 17382 �� � � � � � � � 172 Aaron Island 17316 �� � � � � � � � 273 Annette Island 17434 � � � � � � � 157 Baron Island 17420 �� � � � � � � � 122 Aats Bay 17402� � � � � � � � � � 277 Annette Point 17434 � � � � � � � 156 Bar Point Basin 17430� � � � � � � 134 Aats Point 17402 �� � � � � � � � � 277 Annex Creek Power Station 17315 �� � 263 Barren Island 17434 � � � � � � � 122 Abbess Island 17405 � � � � � � � 203 Appleton Cove 17338 � � � � � � � 332 Barren Island Light 17434 �� � � � � 122 Abraham Islands 17382 � � � � � � 171 Approach Point 17426 � � � � � � � 162 Barrie Island 17360 � � � � � � � � 230 Abrejo Rocks 17406 � � � � � � � � 208 Aranzazu Point 17420 � � � � � � � 122 Barrier Islands 17386, 17387 �� � � � 228 Adams Anchorage 17316 � � � � � � 272 Arboles Islet 17406 �� � � � � � � � 207 Barrier Islands 17433
    [Show full text]
  • Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas
    Visual Priority Routes & Use Areas Appendix F Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas Table of Contents Administrative Area Page Number Ranger District Introduction F-2 Stikine Area Petersburg Ranger District F-3 Wrangell Ranger District F-5 Chatham Area Juneau Ranger District F-7 Sitka Ranger District F-10 Yakutat Ranger District F-14 Hoonah Ranger District F-15 Ketchikan Area Thorne Bay Ranger District F-17 Craig Ranger District F-19 Ketchikan Ranger District and Misty Fiords (outside of the monument) F-21 Note: Admiralty and Misty Fiords National Monuments are also administrative units on the Tongass National Forest. They both have an adopted visual quality objective of Retention (activities not to be visually evident to the casual observer) throughout the area within the boundaries of the National Monument. F-1 Visual Priority Routes & Use Areas Introduction This appendix lists viewpoints from which scenery will be emphasized. Viewpoints are either “routes” or “use areas,” and are the viewpoints used to assess the existing visual condition of any given project area and to develop project designs that will be consistent with the adopted visual quality objectives for each land use designation. (See the Scenery Forest-wide Standards & Guidelines in Chapter 4 for a listing of the adopted visual quality objectives for foreground, middleground, and background views by land use designation.) Visual priority routes and use areas are arranged by each of the Ranger Districts within each of the three Tongass Administrative Areas: Stikine, Chatham, and Ketchikan. The Wildernesses are not listed because they have an adopted visual quality objective of Retention that applies throughout the area within the boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision for the Interconnecting Sloughs of the Stikine River
    United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Alaska State Office 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 www.blm.gov/alaska In Reply Refer To: AA-85787 1864 (LLAK9420) JUN 12 2019 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED DECISION State of Alaska AA-85787 Department of Natural Resources Recordable Disclaimer of Interest Division of Mining, Land & Water Application Public Access Assertion & Defense Unit 550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 1070 Interconnecting Sloughs of the Stikine Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3579 River ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER GRANTED APPLICATION APPROVED On Feb. 17, 2005, the State of Alaska (State) filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a recordable disclaimer of interest (RDI) under the provisions of Section 315 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of Oct. 21, 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. §1745, and the regulations contained in 43 CFR Subpart 1864, for certain lands underlying the Stikine River, located in southeastern Alaska. The State's application included "all submerged lands lying within the bed of the Stikine River, and all named and unnamed interconnecting sloughs including Binkleys Slough, Red Slough, Guerin Slough, King Slough, Andrew Slough, Hooligan Slough, Shakes Slough, Shakes Lake, North Arm and Ketili River, between the ordinary high water lines of the left and right banks from the Alaska/Canada International Border in T. 60 S., R. 86 E., Copper River Meridian, Alaska, downstream approximately 27 miles to all points of confluence at its mouth in the Eastern Passage, Dry Strait and Frederick Sound, within T. 60 S., R. 82 E.; T.
    [Show full text]
  • Salmon Holes & Halibut Hills, a Sport Fishing Atlas of Southeast Alaska
    SALMON HOLES1\HALIBUT HILLS A SPORT FISHING ATLAS oF j . SOUTHEAST ALASKA Introduction Please Observe There are fishing opportunities in southeast Alaska to satisfy just The maps included in this document are for assisting people in selec­ about every saltwater angler. In fact, the opportunities are so great ting sites for fishing the saltwater areas of southeast Alaska. THESE that the choice can be a little overwhelming. Everyone who has ever MAPS SHOULD NEVER BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. Marine dangled a hook from a boat knows that to be successful, you must charts, with detailed information necessary for safe marine naviga­ be in the right place at the right time. This guide has been assembled tion, are available from the Department of Commerce, National . to make better informed choices on where to fish in the saltwater Oceanic and Atmospheric Aministration (NOAA). The appropriate areas of southeast Alaska, specifically, for salmon and halibut. Ad­ NOAA charts for different parts of southeast Alaska are identified ditionally, a timing guide is included to indicate the times ofavailabili­ in the index of place names in this document. ty, including peak periods, for salmon and halibut. Acknowledgements How To Use This Booklet The following individuals contributed their knowledge, which There are 24 maps in this booklet. Collectively, they include essen­ without, this product would not have been possible: William Dem­ tially all the marine waters from Dixon Entrance to Cross Sound, mert Jr., Honest, never known to lie, Larry Edfelt, Joe Orsi, Carl and north to Haines, in Lynn Canal. Each map has locations iden­ Rosier, Ron Somerville, and many past and present employees of tified known to concentrate salmon and halibut more than adjacent the Alaska Department ofFish and Game, including Will Bergmann, waters.
    [Show full text]
  • US Count.II Opp.Compiled.Pdf
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 128, Original STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant ____________ Before the Special Master Gregory E. Maggs ____________ MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION TO ALASKA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT II OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ____________ Theodore B. Olson Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey P. Minear Assistant to the Solicitor General Gary B. Randall Bruce M. Landon Michael W. Reed Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 1 ARGUMENT: I. Alaska’s Supposed Bays Are Straits Separating Islands .......................... 3 A. Alaska’s Proposed Assimilation Theory Is Flawed ............................. 4 1. Alaska does not properly identify the intervening waters ..................... 6 2. Alaska does not properly assess the depth and utility of the intervening waters ... 11 B. Alaska’s Application Of Assimilation Principles To The Features In This Case Is Mistaken ............................................................. 13 1. Mitkof, Kupreanof, and Kuiu Islands are not one land-form, nor are they part of the mainland .......................................................... 14 a. Kuiu Island cannot be assimilated to Kupreanof Island ................... 15 b. Kupreanof Island cannot be assimilated to the mainland directly or through Mitkof Island ................................................... 16 c. The proposed island-complex cannot be assimilated to the mainland ........ 20 2. Kurzof Island cannot be assimilated to Baranof Island ...................... 22 3. Dall Island cannot be assimilated to Prince of Wales Island .................. 23 C. Additional Considerations Preclude Entry Of Summary Judgement In Favor Of Alaska .............................................................. 24 1. The geologic origin of the islands weighs heavily against assimilation .........
    [Show full text]
  • Definition of IPHC Statistical Areas
    ISSN: 0579-3920 INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC HALIBUT COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY A CONVENTION BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Technical Report No. 49 Defi nition of IPHC statistical areas by Thomas M. Kong, Heather L. Gilroy, and Richard C. Leickly SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 2004 The International Pacifi c Halibut Commission has three publications: Annual Reports (U.S. 0074-7238), Scientifi c Reports, and Technical Reports (U.S. ISSN 0579-3920). Until 1969, only one series was pub lished (U.S. ISSN 0074-7426). The numbering of the original series has been continued with the Sci en tifi c Re ports. Commissioners Clifford Atleo James Balsiger Richard Beamish Ralph Hoard Phillip Lestenkof John Secord Director Bruce M. Leaman Scientifi c Advisors Loh-Lee Low Max Stocker INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC HALIBUT COMMISSION P.O. BOX 95009 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98145-2009, U.S.A. www.iphc.washington.edu 2 Defi nition of IPHC statistical areas Contents Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5 Relationship of statistical areas to regulatory areas .................................................................. 5 Statistical area representation in GIS ........................................................................................ 5 Historical statistical area defi nitions: ca. 1925 - 1991 .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2022 Itineraries, Dates, and Rates
    Alaskan2022 Dream Cruises Search for humpback whales, orcas, coastal brown bears, Learn from knowledgeable captains, naturalists, mountain goats and more as we venture through the cultural heritage guides and crew. Enjoy educational region’s most abundant wildlife areas. enrichment programs throughout the voyage. Experience Alaskan culture in remote Native villages and Our dynamic itineraries are designed by the Allen charming towns – from the state capital to rural fishing family based on generations of exploring Southeast communities. Alaska Explore stunning glacial fjords, including Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve and the Tracy-Arm Ford’s Terror Wilderness Area. Call 800.977.9705 Savor Alaska’s unparalleled serenity at our exclusive Orca akcruises.com/alaskandreamcruises.html Point Lodge on the shores of Colt Island, with king crab and a beach bonfire for s’mores. Over 10 Years of True Alaska with True Alaskans Experience Alaska’s Small Ship Cruise Line Vessels from just 10- to 76-passengers 7-night, Last Frontier Adventure Day 1 Sitka: Explore beautiful Sitka, the only community in Southeast Alaska that faces the open ocean waters of the Gulf of Alaska. Participate in a wilderness hike on one of the many trails in town. Visit sites that highlight the community’s rich Alaska Native and Russian history. Embark for the winding narrows north of town while searching for bald eagles, sea otters, bears, whales, and other wildlife. Day 2 Rainforest Hike & Baranof Island's Waterfall Coast: Spend the day exploring remote, Inside Passage wilderness. Hike a rainforest trail featuring towering spruce and hemlock trees and lush undergrowth. Your knowledgeable guide will provide commentary on the indigenous plants and wildlife of the area.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 128, Original STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant ____________ Before the Special Master Gregory E. Maggs ____________ MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON COUNT II OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ____________ Theodore B. Olson Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey P. Minear Assistant to the Solicitor General Gary B. Randall Bruce M. Landon Michael W. Reed Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 128, Original STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant ____________ Before the Special Master Gregory E. Maggs ____________ MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT II OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ____________ In accordance with Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., the United States moves for partial summary judgment on Count II of the Amended Complaint of the State of Alaska in this original action. Specifically, the United States moves for an order ruling that the islands of the Alexander Archipelago cannot be assimilated to the mainland or each other to create one or more juridical bays, decreeing that Alaska does not possess title to the associated submerged lands that it claims on that basis, and entering judgment on Count II in favor of the United States. There are no disputed material issues of fact and the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This motion is supported by the attached Memorandum.
    [Show full text]
  • Count.II Reply. Complied.Pdf
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 128, Original STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant ____________ Before the Special Master Gregory E. Maggs ____________ REPLY OF THE UNITED STATES IN SUPPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT II OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ____________ Theodore B. Olson Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey P. Minear Assistant to the Solicitor General Gary B. Randall Bruce M. Landon Michael W. Reed Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 3 I. Adoption of Alaska’s Proposals Could Adversely Affect The United States’ International Interests ..................................................... 3 A. Straight Baselines and Juridical Bays Have Different International Consequences ... 3 B. The United States Recognizes Proper Article 7 Bays .......................... 5 1. “North Bay” and “South Bay” are not recognizable as juridical bays ........... 6 2. Non-assimilated islands do not create landlocked waters .................... 7 3. “North Bay” was not an Article 7 bay at Alaska’s statehood ................ 10 II. The Island-Complex Is Not Part Of The Alaska Mainland ........................ 11 A. The United States Does Not Use Mean High Water For Any Relevant Measurement. 11 B. Alaska Misinterprets The Supreme Court’s Criteria ......................... 12 C. Alaska Misapplies The Supreme Court’s Criteria ........................... 15 1. Kuiu Island is not part of the mainland ................................. 15 2. Kupreanof Island is not part of the mainland ............................. 15 3. The island-complex is not part of the mainland ........................... 17 D. Alaska’s Proposed Assimilations Are Not Similar To The Supreme Court’s Assimilation Of Long Island ...........................................
    [Show full text]