DOCSLIB.ORG

State of Alaska Petition and Appendix

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State of Alaska Petition and Appendix No. 13-___ In the Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ALASKA, Petitioner, v. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MICHAEL C. GERAGHTY GREGORY G. GARRE Attorney General Counsel of Record MICHAEL G. MITCHELL KATHERINE I. TWOMEY Senior Assistant KATYA S. CRONIN Attorney General LATHAM & WATKINS LLP STATE OF ALASKA 555 11th Street, NW Department of Law Suite 1000 1031 W. 4th Avenue Washington, DC 20004 Suite 2000 (202) 637-2207 Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner i QUESTIONS PRESENTED The State of Alaska, like all States, enjoys the sovereign “right to control and regulate navigable streams within [her borders],” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 573 (1911), and to manage fish and game along those waters, United States v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1997). In the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 16 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq., Congress gave rural Alaskans a priority over other residents for the “taking on public lands of fish and wildlife” for subsistence uses. Id. § 3114. “[P]ublic lands” are “[f]ederal lands”—i.e., “lands, waters, and interests therein”—“the title to which is in the United States.” Id. § 3102(1)-(3). Although the definition does not mention navigable waters, the Ninth Circuit adopted the government’s litigating position that ANILCA nevertheless covers any navigable waters in which the United States has an interest by virtue of the “reserved water rights doctrine.” In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit applied that framework to uphold a 1999 Rule that transfers from Alaska to the United States authority to control of fishing and hunting along waterways in over half of the State. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly held—in conflict with this Court’s decisions—that the federal reserved water rights doctrine authorizes the unprecedented federal takeover of Alaska’s navigable waters sanctioned by the 1999 Rule. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly proceeded on the premise—which also conflicts with this Court’s decisions—that ANILCA could be interpreted to federalize navigable waters at all given Congress’s silence on the Act’s application to navigable waters. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING In this case, petitioner is the State of Alaska. Respondents are: Sally Jewell, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and Tom Vilsack, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who were defendants below; the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Federation and Outdoor Council, the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund, Michael Tinker, and John Conrad, who were plaintiff-intervenors below; Katie John, Charles Erhart, the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, and the Native Village of Tanana, who were defendant- intervenors below; and the Alaska Federation of Natives, which was a defendant-intervenor below. Before the Ninth Circuit, this case was consolidated with another case in which the parties were: Katie John, Charles Erhart, the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, and the Native Village of Tanana, who were plaintiffs; the United States of America, Sally Jewell, Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and Tom Vilsack, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who were defendants; and the State of Alaska, which was a defendant-intervenor. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................ i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING .............................. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................... vi OPINIONS BELOW ......................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ................................................................ 1 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ..................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................... 4 A. ANILCA And The 1990 Rule ............................ 4 B. Katie John I And Totemoff ................................ 5 C. Katie John II ........................................................ 8 D. 1999 Rule At Issue Here ..................................... 9 E. This Litigation .................................................... 10 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 13 I. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED CUT AT THE HEART OF ALASKA’S SOVEREIGNTY ...................................................... 14 II. THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION DIRECTLY CONTRAVENES THIS COURT’S PRECEDENT ON THE FEDERAL RESERVED WATER RIGHTS DOCTRINE IN DEROGATION OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY ...................................................... 17 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page A. This Court’s Precedent Carefully Limits The Federal Reserved Rights Doctrine ......... 17 B. The Ninth Circuit Decision Clearly Conflicts With This Court’s Decisions ............ 20 C. The Ninth Circuit’s Expansion Of The Doctrine Invades State Sovereignty .............. 24 III. THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION RESTS ON THE FLAWED PREMISE THAT ANILCA MAY BE INTERPRETED TO REACH NAVIGABLE WATERS AT ALL ....... 25 A. The Ninth Circuit’s Framework Conflicts With This Court’s Precedents .......................... 26 B. Certiorari Is Warranted To Review The Ninth Circuit’s Framework .............................. 30 CONCLUSION ................................................................. 34 APPENDIX Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Katie John v. United States, 720 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................... 1a Order of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Katie John v. United States, No. 3:05-cv-0006-HRH (D. Alaska May 17, 2007) ............................................................ 65a v TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page Order of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Katie John v. United States, No. 3:05-cv-0006-HRH (D. Alaska Sept. 29, 2009) .......................................................... 96a 16 U.S.C. § 3102(1)-(3) .................................................. 184a 16 U.S.C. § 3114 ............................................................. 185a 43 U.S.C. § 3111(a) ........................................................ 186a Alaska Statehood Act, Pub. L. No. 85-508, § 6(m), 72 Stat. 339, 343 (1958) ............................. 187a 64 Fed. Reg. 1276 (Jan. 8, 1999) .................................. 188a vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1187 (1996) (Katie John I) ............................ 6, 7, 8, 27 Alaska v. Babbitt, 517 U.S. 1187 (1996) ..................................................... 8 Alaska v. United States, 545 U.S. 75 (2005) ....................................................... 26 Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) ......................................... 17, 18, 22 Avondale Irrigation District v. North Idaho Properties, Inc., 577 P.2d 9 (Idaho 1978) ............................................. 24 Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) .................................... 7, 18, 19, 22 Charles v. State, 232 P.3d 739 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010) ....................... 31 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) ....................................................... 6 City of Joliet v. New West, L.P., 562 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 936 (2010) ..................................................................... 29 Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911) .......................................... i, 2, 4, 14 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) ..................................................... 29 In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source, 289 P.3d 936 (Ariz. 2012) ........................................... 24 State ex rel. Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 712 P.2d 754 (Mont. 1985) ......................................... 24 Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) ......................................... 25, 26, 28 Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co., 337 U.S. 86 (1949) ....................................................... 27 Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261 (1997) ..................................................... 14 James v. State, 950 P.2d 1130 (Alaska 1997) ..................................... 31 Jones v. State, 936 P.2d 1263 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997) ..................... 31 Katie John v. United States, 247 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2001) (Katie John II) ............................................. 4, 8, 26, 27 McDowell v. Alaska, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989) ....................................... 5, 15 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 362 P.2d 901 (Alaska 1961) (Egan I), vacated, 369 U.S. (1962) ................................................................... 15 Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 369 U.S. 45 (1962) (Egan II) ..................................... 15 Miyasoto v. State, No. A-5486, 1996 WL 33686451 (Alaska Ct. App. Mar. 13, 1996) .............................................................. 31 Navajo Dev. Co. v. Sanderson, 655 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1982) ......................................... 27 Potlatch Corp. v. United States (In re Srba), 12 P.3d 1260 (Idaho 2000) ......................................... 16 Raygor v. Regents of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alaska Park Science Anchorage, Alaska
    National Park Service U.S. Department of Interior Alaska Regional Office Alaska Park Science Anchorage, Alaska PROCEEDINGS OF THE CentrCentralal AlaskAlaskaa PParkark SciencSciencee SymposiumSymposium SeptemberSeptember 12-14,12-14, 2006 2006 Denali Park, Alaska Volume 6, Issue 2 Parks featured in this Table of Contents issue of Alaska Park Science Keynote Address Alaska Parks in a Warming Climate: Conserving a Changing Future __________________________ 6 S K A Yukon-Charley Rivers Synthesis L A National Preserve Crossing Boundaries in Changing Environment: Norton Sound A A Synthesis __________________________________________12 Monitoring a Changing Climate Denali National Park and Preserve Long-term Air Quality Monitoring Wrangell-St. Elias in Denali National Park and Preserve __________________18 National Park and Preserve Monitoring Seasonal and Long-term Climate Changes and Extremes in the Central Alaska Network__________ 22 Physical Environment and Sciences Glacier Monitoring in Denali National Park and Preserve ________________________________________26 Applications of the Soil-Ecological Survey of Denali National Park and Preserve__________________31 Bristol Bay Gulf of Alaska Using Radiocarbon to Detect Change in Ecosystem Carbon Cycling in Response to Permafrost Thawing____34 A Baseline Study of Permafrost in the Toklat Basin, Denali National Park and Preserve ____________________37 Dinosauria and Fossil Aves Footprints from the Lower Cantwell Formation (latest Cretaceous), Denali National Park and Preserve ____________________41
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Contemporary Subsistence Harvest of Non-Salmon Fish in the Koyukuk River Drainage, Alaska
    Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Contemporary Subsistence Harvest of Non-Salmon Fish in the Koyukuk River Drainage, Alaska by David B. Andersen1, Caroline L. Brown2, Robert J. Walker2 and Kimberly Elkin3 Technical Paper No. 282 1Research North° 2Alaska Department of Fish and Game 3Tanana Chiefs Conference Fairbanks, Alaska Division of Subsistence Fairbanks, Alaska May 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................. 7 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Collection of TEK ........................................................................................................................ 8 Collection of Harvest Data........................................................................................................ 13 Sampling Goals ...................................................................................................................... 14 Pre-fieldwork Training Session.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge
    Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge March 2017 Prepared by 1U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Rd Anchorage, Alaska 99503 907/786-3967 2Alaska Center for Conservation Science University of Alaska Anchorage Beatrice McDonald Hall 3211 Providence Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508 907/786-6350 Authors 1Cathy Flanagan, 2Becky Shaftel, 2Lindsey Flagstad, 2Marcus Geist, 2Dustin Merrigan CITATION for this document: USFWS 2017. Water Resources Inventory and Assessment: Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 71 p The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service or USFWS) is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Congress established the Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge (Kanuti Refuge or the Refuge) primarily for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and habitats in their natural diversity. In particular, Congress noted the value for migrating birds in the Pacific Flyway and as habitat for nesting birds and resident wildlife. The Refuge and the species it supports are highly dependent upon the aquatic habitats that dominate the landscape. The rivers, lakes, and wetlands of Kanuti Refuge may be the most important asset for the continued health of habitats that support these species. Managing these resources requires a heightened understanding of the extent, condition, and concerns facing these resources. Success in achieving the mission and purpose of the Service and Kanuti Refuge requires thoughtful management of water. A national team of Service hydrologists developed the Water Resources Inventory and Assessment (WRIA) model to address the growing need for managing water in a changing environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Boreal Partners in Flight 2011 Annual Meeting and Project Summaries
    Boreal Partners in Flight 2011 Annual Meeting and Project Summaries May 2012 1 1. Meeting Agenda ………………………………………………………………………. 5 2. Meeting Minutes a. Meeting Minutes ……………………………………………………………….. 7 b. Meeting Attendees………………………………………………………………13 3. Project Summaries a. Bird Conservation Region One – Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea …………........15 b. Bird Conservation Region Two – Western Alaska …………………………….….15 i. Monitoring 1. BBS Routes ………………………….…………………………16 2. ALMS Plots ………………………………..…………………...16 3. Christmas Bird Counts………………………………………….16 4. North American Migration Counts ……………………………..16 5. Cliff Nesting Raptor Inventories ……………………………….16 6. Raptor Carcass Collections……………………………………..16 7. Avian Database for Alaska Peninsula/Becharof and Izembek NWRs ....……………………………………………….17 ii. Education / Outreach: 1. Alaska Migratory Bird Calendar…………………………………17 2. Great Backyard Bird Count ……………………………………...17 3. Cold Bay School …………………………………………………17 4. Community Bird Walks and Tours………………………………17 5. Bethel Fair ……………………………………………………….17 6. Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) ……..18 7. Media ………………………………………………………….…18 8. Issues ……………………………………………………………..18 iii. Research 1. Abundance and Distribution of Cliff-Nesting Raptors and Ravens on the Southern Seward Peninsula ………………………19 2. Abundance and Multi-Year Occupancy of Gyrfalcons Falco rusticolus on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska ……………………..19 3. Willow Ptarmigan Pilot Study, Alaska Peninsula, May 2011 …...20 c. Bird Conservation Region Three – Arctic Plains and Mountains…………………..21
    [Show full text]
  • Yukon and Kuskokwim Whitefish Strategic Plan
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Whitefish Biology, Distribution, and Fisheries in the Yukon and Kuskokwim River Drainages in Alaska: a Synthesis of Available Information Alaska Fisheries Data Series Number 2012-4 Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office Fairbanks, Alaska May 2012 The Alaska Region Fisheries Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts fisheries monitoring and population assessment studies throughout many areas of Alaska. Dedicated professional staff located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Kenai Fish and Wildlife Offices and the Anchorage Conservation Genetics Laboratory serve as the core of the Program’s fisheries management study efforts. Administrative and technical support is provided by staff in the Anchorage Regional Office. Our program works closely with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and other partners to conserve and restore Alaska’s fish populations and aquatic habitats. Our fisheries studies occur throughout the 16 National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska as well as off- Refuges to address issues of interjurisdictional fisheries and aquatic habitat conservation. Additional information about the Fisheries Program and work conducted by our field offices can be obtained at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/index.htm The Alaska Region Fisheries Program reports its study findings through the Alaska Fisheries Data Series (AFDS) or in recognized peer-reviewed journals. The AFDS was established to provide timely dissemination of data to fishery managers and other technically oriented professionals, for inclusion in agency databases, and to archive detailed study designs and results for the benefit of future investigations. Publication in the AFDS does not preclude further reporting of study results through recognized peer-reviewed journals.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 104
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Distribution and Demographics of Whitefish Species in the Upper Koyukuk River Drainage, Alaska, with Emphasis on Seasonal Migrations and Important Habitats of Broad Whitefish and Humpback Whitefish Alaska Fisheries Technical Report Number 104 Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office Fairbanks, Alaska August 2009 The Alaska Region Fisheries Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts fisheries monitoring and population assessment studies throughout many areas of Alaska. Dedicated professional staff located in Anchorage, Juneau, Fairbanks, and Kenai Fish and Wildlife Field Offices and the Anchorage Conservation Genetics Laboratory serve as the core of the Program’s fisheries management study efforts. Administrative and technical support is provided by staff in the Anchorage Regional Office. Our program works closely with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and other partners to conserve and restore Alaska’s fish populations and aquatic habitats. Additional information about the Fisheries Program and work conducted by our field offices can be obtained at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/index.htm The Alaska Region Fisheries Program reports its study findings through two regional publication series. The Alaska Fisheries Data Series was established to provide timely dissemination of data to local managers and for inclusion in agency databases. The Alaska Fisheries Technical Reports publishes scientific findings from single and multi- year studies that have undergone more extensive peer review and statistical testing. Additionally, some study results are published in a variety of professional fisheries journals. Disclaimer: The use of trade names of commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the federal government.
    [Show full text]
  • Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge Annual Report
    Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge Annual Report Fairbanks, Alaska Calendar Year 2007 Prairie Bluet photo by John Hudson ____________________________________ Refuge Manager Date ____________________________________ Refuge Zone Supervisor Date ____________________________________ Regional Office Approval Date ii Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge: The Year 2007 at a glance… In Calendar Year 2007 the Refuge said goodbye to Resource Planner Deborah Webb, said hello to new Fire Management Officer Chase Marshall and Rural Representative Kenneth Bergman, and more permanently welcomed back Park Ranger Kristin Reakoff and Maintenance Worker Doug Holton. It was a year that saw the often day-to-day grind of drafting the Refuge’s revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan punctuated with projects addressing major resource and education issues. The Refuge’s moose population garnered much of our attention, including browse and population surveys, hunter education and law enforcement for several hunts, and an interagency agreement to look at moose movements. “Friends of Alaska Refuges” volunteers continued to battle invasive weeds moving up the Dalton Highway that threaten waterways entering the Refuge. Several staff floated the Kanuti River from the Dalton Highway to educate both themselves and members of the regional directorate about some of the challenges faced by visitors attempting to access this remote Refuge. Staff and cooperators also helped host a science and cultural camp at the Henshaw Creek weir. Plans with National Park Service for building a shared bunkhouse and office/visitor in Bettles began in earnest. Finally, the Refuge’s new logo, featuring a dragonfly and wetland (and not the usual charismatic megafauna or mountains’ majesty!!), merely highlighted the understated function and beauty of this wild place.
    [Show full text]
  • Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge Annual Report
    Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge Annual Report Fairbanks, Alaska Calendar Year 2006 S. Hillebrand photo ____________________________________ Refuge Manager Date ____________________________________ Refuge Zone Supervisor Date ____________________________________ Regional Office Approval Date ii Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge: The Year 2006 at a glance… Calendar Year 2006 again marked a busy year for the Refuge. Deputy Refuge Manager Fox and Wildlife Biologist/Planner Webb joined the staff in early spring and collaborated with Refuge Manager Spindler and Wildlife Biologist Saperstein throughout much of the year in producing an internal draft of the revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Our staff completeness was short-lived, however; Park Ranger DeMeyere and Biological Technician Knight left in April and August, respectively. While no wildland fires occurred on/near the Refuge this summer (in stark contrast to 2004 and 2005), staff expended considerable effort in fire-related projects, including: completion of the Fire Management Plan; a fuels reduction project in Evansville; and stabilization, rehabilitation, and post-fire assessment of the 2005 Old Dummy burn (part of the “Burned Area Emergency Response” program). The absence of fire made possible the first aerial survey of Greater White-fronted Geese in three years; however, an absence of early winter snow forced a cancellation of the annual moose survey. Wildlife Biologist Saperstein helped organize, as well as presented two posters at, The Wildlife Society’s annual conference held in Anchorage. Facilities-wise, the Refuge received legal title to the 3-bedroom residence that serves as our field station in Bettles. In addition, major progress was made in securing funding for and designing an office/visitor center and permanent bunkhouse in Bettles, in cooperation with the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • WESTERN INTERIOR ALASKA SUBSISTENCE REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Meeting Materials
    WESTERN INTERIOR ALASKA SUBSISTENCE REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Meeting Materials March 26-27, 2019 Fairbanks What’s Inside Page 1 Agenda 4 Roster 5 Wildlife Closure Review WCR18-20 (Unit 24 Moose) 16 Wildlife Closure Review WCR18-39 (Unit 19A Moose) 25 Wildlife Closure Review WCR18-43 (Unit 19A remainder Moose) 37 News Release: Call for Proposals to Change Federal Subsistence Hunting and Trapping Regulations 38 Proposed Rule: Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska—2020–21 and 2021–22 Subsistence Taking of Wildlife Regulations 43 How to Submit a Proposal to Change Federal Subsistence Regulations 46 Council’s FY2018 Draft Annual Report 51 Alaska Board of Game Call for Proposals (Arctic, Western, and the Interior Regions) for 2019/2020 Meeting Cycle 53 Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge’s Report to the Western Interior Regional Subsistence Advisory Council February 2019 60 North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) salmon bycatch update 62 Bering Sea Salmon Bycatch Update, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, July 2017 66 Reducing Bycatch in Alaska 68 Fall 2019 Council Meeting Calendar 69 Winter 2020 Council Meeting Calendar 70 Region 6 Western Interior Alaska Region Map 71 Council Charter On the cover... The most productive Kanuti trail camera has documented moose, black bear, lynx, wolver- ine, red squirrel, spruce grouse, and wolf along an active game trail. This site seems to be most active in spring, summer, and fall. The trail is largely obscured by winter snow which can be deep- unless you can stay on top like this wolf! USFWS photo This page intentionally left blank. Agenda WESTERN INTERIOR ALASKA SUBSISTENCE REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Pike’s Waterfront Lodge Fairbanks March 26-27, 2019 | 9:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • THE DALTON HIGHWAY Made It for Arctic Grayling, Dolly Varden, Burbot, and Possible to Travel North of the Arctic Circle and Northern Pike
    Word about fishing A regulations . CONSULT CURRENT FISHING REGULATIONS BEFORE setting out on any fishing trip . Regulation booklets are available at all Alaska Department of Fish and Game offices and most license vendors. The information contained in this document was partially funded by the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. Partial funding was also provided by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1150 University Ave., Fairbanks, AK 99709. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game administers all programs and activities free from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire further information, please write to ADF&G, P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4040 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 300 Webb, Arlington, VA 22203; or O.E.O., U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington DC 20240. For information on alternative formats for this and other department publications, please contact the department ADA Coordinator at (voice) 907-465-4120, (TDD) 907-465-3646, or (FAX) 907-465-2440. Produced by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sport Fish Division, Region III Alaska 1300 College Road Department Fairbanks, AK 99701 of Fish and Game port fishing along the the combination of more northerly latitude and proximity to headwaters means that fewer fish Dalton Highway S inhabit these waters than in more southerly and coastal areas of Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Summary of Landbird Projects for Boreal Partners in Flight
    2012 Summary of Landbird Projects For Boreal Partners in Flight December 2012 Compiled and lightly edited by Jim Johnson for Boreal Partners in Flight. Anyone wanting more information about these studies should contact the individual(s) noted at the end of each project summary. Visit the Alaska Landbird Resource Information System, the official website of Boreal Partners in Flight: http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/bpif/index.php i TABLE OF CONTENTS A NOTE FROM THE COMPILER .........................................................................................................6 ROAD-SYSTEM GROUSE AND PTARMIGAN ABUNDANCE SURVEYS, ALASKA, 2012 UPDATE ................................................................................................................................7 Alaska Department of Fish and Game STATEWIDE HUNTER HARVESTED GROUSE AND PTARMIGAN WING COLLECTION PROGRAM, ALASKA, 2012 ...............................................................................................................................8 Alaska Department of Fish and Game HIERARCHICAL MODELS OF BIRD DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE ACROSS NATIONAL PARKS OF SOUTHWESTERN ALASKA ........................................................................................................8 Courtney Amundson and Colleen Handel SITKA WINTER BIRD OBSERVATION PROJECT ...............................................................................9 Gwen Baluss, Matt Goff, Kitty LaBounty, Scott Harris, and Kent Bovee EVALUATION OF AUTUMN MIST-NETTING DATA FOR MONITORING
    [Show full text]
  • Central Yukon RMP/EIS
    BLM Central Yukon Resource Management Plan Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria Prepared by the Bureau of Land Management Central Yukon Field Office Fairbanks, Alaska November 2015 Alaska BLM/AK/GI-16/001+8351+F000 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern i Report on the Application of the Relevance and Importance Criteria TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... ES-1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGNATION ........................................................................................... 7 2.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................................................................ 7 2.1.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Importance .......................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Special Management Attention ........................................................................... 8 2.2 Research Natural Areas.................................................................................................... 9 3. ACEC EVALUATIONS ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]