DOCSLIB.ORG

Executive Summary of Preliminary Report on Ketchikan Local Government Consolidation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Executive Summary of Preliminary Report on Ketchikan Local Government Consolidation Preliminary Report on Ketchikan Local Government Consolidation Acknowledgements Report written by: Dan Bockhorst, Local Government Specialist and Local Boundary Commission Staff Supervisor Information or assistance in the preparation of this report was pro- vided by: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Indra Arriaga, Research Analyst Kathy Atkinson, Local Government Specialist Nicole Grewe, Development Specialist Jeanne McPherren, Local Government Specialist Bill Rolfzen, Local Government Specialist Darlene Watchman, Local Government Specialist Steve Van Sant, State Assessor Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development Neal Fried, Economist Kathryn Lizik, Research Analyst Daniel Robinson, Economist Gregory Williams, State Demographer Ingrid Zaruba, Research Analyst City of Ketchikan Karl Amylon, City Manager Robert Newell, Jr., Finance Director Katy Suiter, City Clerk Ketchikan Charter Commission Debby Otte, Member and Secretary Glen Thompson, Chair Ketchikan Gateway Borough Roy Eckert, Borough Manager Harriett Edwards, Borough Clerk Dennis Finegan, Assessment Director Page layout by Jennie Starkey, Publications Technician Page i Preliminary Report on Ketchikan Local Government Consolidation Page ii Preliminary Report on Ketchikan Local Government Consolidation Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................ i Executive Summary of Preliminary Report on Ketchikan Local Government Consolidation ................................ Executive Summary - 1 Chapter 1 Background ....................................................................1 A. The Petitioner’s Stated Reasons for the Consolidation Proposal .....1 B. Effects of the Pending Proposal to Consolidate the City and the KGB ..................................................................1 C. Structure for Delivery of Municipal Services in the Greater Ketchikan Region Compared to Other Parts of Alaska. ............ 16 D. Significant Historical Developments Regarding Local Government Structure Within the Greater Ketchikan Area ...... 19 E. Proceedings to Date Regarding the Pending Consolidation Proposal ..................................................................... 22 F. Future Proceedings Regarding the Pending Consolidation Proposal. .................................................................... 32 Chapter 2 Evaluation of the Ketchikan Consolidation Proposal in Terms of Applicable Legal Standards .............................................. 37 Part 1. Whether Consolidation Promotes Maximum Local Self-Government .......................................................... 37 Part 2. Whether Consolidation Promotes “A Minimum Number of Local Government Units” ............................................ 43 Part 3. Whether the Boundaries of the Proposed Consolidated Borough Are Suitable ..................................................... 49 Part 4. Whether the Population of the Proposed Consolidated Borough Is Large and Stable Enough to Support Borough Government ................................................................ 71 Part 5. Whether the Economy of the Proposed Consolidated Borough Includes the Human and Financial Resources Capable of Providing Municipal Services ........................................ 74 Part 6. Whether Facilities in the Proposed Consolidated Borough Allow the Communication and Exchange Necessary for Integrated Borough Government ....................................... 96 Part 7. Whether the Proposed Consolidated Borough Serves the Best Interests of the State .............................................. 98 Part 8. Whether the Transition Plan Included in the Amended Petition Is Complete and Otherwise Complies With the Requirements of Law ................................................... 102 Table of Contents continued on next page Page iii Preliminary Report on Ketchikan Local Government Consolidation Table of Contents continued Part 9. Whether the Proposed Consolidation Has a Racially Discriminatory Purpose, Would Make Minority Voters Worse Off, or Would Deny Civil or Political Rights in Violation of the Law .................................................... 106 Chapter 3 Summary of Commerce’s Conclusions and Recommendations to the LBC ............................................................................ 109 A. Summary of Conclusions .................................................. 109 B. Recommendations ......................................................... 110 Glossary .................................................................................. 115 Appendix A Background ................................................................ A-1 Local Boundary Commission .................................................. A-1 Staff to the Commission ....................................................... A-8 Appendix B Comparisons of Sales, Property, and Transient Occupancy Tax Levies ............................................................................. B-1 Appendix C Standards Applicable to the Ketchikan Consolidation Proposal .............................................................. C-1 Applicable Standards Under the Constitution of the State of Alaska ............................................................ C-1 Applicable Standards Under the Alaska Statutes ......................... C-1 Applicable Standards Under the Regulations .............................. C-2 Applicable Provisions Under the Federal Voting Rights Act ............ C-9 Appendix D Petition Exhibit F-1Three Year Annual Budget .................... D-1 Appendix E Excerpts from Ketchikan Coastal Management Plan .............. E-1 Page iv Preliminary Report on Ketchikan Local Government Consolidation Page v Preliminary Report on Ketchikan Local Government Consolidation Executive Summary of Preliminary Report on Ketchikan Local Government Consolidation April 2006 In 2003, members of the Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce formed the “Ketchikan – One Government Committee” to promote consolidation of the City of Ketchikan (“City”) and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough (“KGB”). Committee members drafted an initiative to create a seven-member board to petition the Alaska Local Boundary Commission (“LBC” or “Commission”) for consolidation of the two local governments. The initiative required the board to file a petition with the LBC by September 2004. Under the initiative, the status of the City of Saxman was to remain unchanged. The initiative was approved when nearly Results of 2003 Consolidation Initiative Election. 55 percent of the KGB 70% 66.10% voters cast ballots in 64.60% favor of the proposal 63.30% 60% in October 2003. It is 56.10% noteworthy, however, that the tally of votes 50% at the precinct level 40% 35.90% reflected faint support 34.30% for the initiative in 28.90% the two North Tongass 30% precincts and the City 20% of Saxman. Conversely, Votes Yes of Percentage voters in the South Tongass Precinct and 10% the three City precincts 0% expressed solid support City of N. Tongass #1 N. Tongass #2 South Tongass City #1 City #2 City #3 for the measure. Saxman Precinct Precinct Precinct Precinct Precinct Precinct Executive Summary Page 1 Preliminary Report on Ketchikan Local Government Consolidation The pattern of votes cast with respect to the 2003 initiative – with the possible exception of the South Tongass Precinct – generally reflected voter attitudes regarding four prior attempts to combine Ketchikan area local governments. In 1973, 1979, 1986, and 2001, a majority of voters in the City supported such measures while most voters in the remainder of the KGB opposed them. Following approval of the October 2003 initiative, voters went back to the polls in January 2004 to choose the seven board members who would draft the consolidation proposal. The initiative required three members to be City residents, three to be KGB residents outside the City, and one to be elected at-large. The board, which called itself the Ketchikan Charter Commission (“KCC”), held its first meeting on January 21, 2004. Over the next eight months, the KCC met 30 times. The KCC finished drafting the consolidation proposal on September 17, 2004. Mindful of the prior unsuccessful attempts by others to combine Ketchikan area local governments, KCC members expressed the view that their work reflected the diverse interests of KGB residents inside and outside the City. Members stressed that the composition of the KCC (three City members, three non-City members, and one member at-large) and an effective effort to garner public input were instrumental to that end. At the conclusion of the September 17 meeting, the seven KCC members voted unanimously to adopt the Petition for Consolidation of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and the City of Ketchikan to the Municipality of Ketchikan, A Home Rule Borough (“Petition”) and file it with the LBC. Interested individuals and organizations then had two months to file formal comments on the proposal with the LBC. The City filed a 28-page Responsive Brief objecting to aspects of the proposal. In addition, the KGB Manager and the City Mayor filed written concerns regarding the proposal. The Petitioner KCC then had an opportunity to reply to the concerns raised by the City and KGB. Beginning in January 2005, the KCC met nine times over the following ten months to consider amendments and to prepare its formal reply. Amendments to the Petition went forward with the unanimous support of KCC members. The amended proposal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Capital Project Summary Department of Transportation and Public Facilities FY2007 Governor Amended Reference No: 41919 4/28/06 2:59:44 PM Page: 1
    Gravina Island Bridge FY2007 Request: $91,000,000 Reference No: 41919 AP/AL: Allocation Project Type: Construction Category: Transportation Location: Ketchikan Contact: John MacKinnon House District: Ketchikan Contact Phone: (907)465-6973 Estimated Project Dates: 07/01/2006 - 06/03/2011 Appropriation: Congressional Earmarks Brief Summary and Statement of Need: Improve surface access between Ketchikan and Gravina Island, including the Ketchikan International Airport. This project contributes to the Department's Mission by reducing injuries, fatalities and property damage, by improving the mobility of people and goods and by increasing private investment. Funding: FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 Total Fed Rcpts $91,000,000 $91,000,000 Total: $91,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $91,000,000 State Match Required One-Time Project Phased - new Phased - underway On-Going 9% = Minimum State Match % Required Amendment Mental Health Bill Operating & Maintenance Costs: Amount Staff Project Development: 0 0 Ongoing Operating: 0 0 One-Time Startup: 0 Totals: 0 0 Additional Information / Prior Funding History: FY2005 - $215,000,000; FY2002 - $20,000,000; FY1999 - $20,200,000. Project Description/Justification: The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to start the final step toward constructing access from Revillagigedo (Revilla) Island to Gravina Island in Southeast Alaska. It is intended to provide a roadway link from Ketchikan to Gravina Island across the Ralph M. Bartholomew Veterans' Memorial Bridges over two channels of Tongass Narrows. Pennock Island in the Narrows is also now accessible. The proposed Gravina Island Highway begins as the Airport Access Road at the Ketchikan International Airport parking lot on Gravina Island and extends south around the end of the present day runway and up the hill to an intersection with Gravina Island Highway and Lewis Reef Road.
    [Show full text]
  • The Folly of Wisdom Preacher: Rev
    The Folly of Wisdom Preacher: Rev. Jill Olds Date: February 23, 2014 20:29 Let us pray. Holy One, guide our hearts towards compassion, and guide our minds towards understanding. And may the words of my mouth and the meditations of all of our hearts and minds together be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord our Rock and our Redeemer, through Jesus Christ we pray, Amen. In September of 2008, on a tiny strip of land in Alaska known as Gravina Island, workers put down their shovels, and parked their steamrollers for the last time. The road was completed. And this was not just any road. The road now known as Gravina Island Highway was nearly thirty years in the making—research began in the 1980s, the intention being to connect the nearby town of Ketchikan with the airport located on the island, about a mile and a half away, thus eliminating the need for a ferry service that carried some 350,000 people every year. The completed road—3.2 miles long—started at the airport and was destined to be connected to the Gravina Island Bridge. Except, herein lies the rub. If you go visit the road today, you’ll start at the airport and, 3.2 miles later, you’ll wind up in a dead-end cul-de-sac. The bridge, which was to cost a whopping $398 million, was never approved of by Congress, and so the project has been indefinitely shelved. But here’s the real kicker—the powers-that-be in Alaska knew before the road was begun that the bridge would never be constructed.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 112 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 112 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 157 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011 No. 30 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. and was For some reason, their moral sen- ican lives. Our surviving servicemen called to order by the Speaker pro tem- sibilities are not offended by a military and -women are coming home with dev- pore (Mr. YODER). conflict that has cost us hundreds of astating physical and psychological f billions of dollars and 1,500 of our brav- wounds. Yet the majority party, so en- est, bravest people without advancing thusiastic in its support for Afghani- DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO national security objectives or truly stan spending, wants to eliminate a TEMPORE diminishing the terrorist threat at the homeless veterans initiative. The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- same time. That’s their version of morality: fore the House the following commu- So how are my colleagues on the Send young Americans halfway around nication from the Speaker: other side of the aisle resolving their the world to be chewed up and trauma- WASHINGTON, DC, moral dilemma? By asking corporate tized. Then pull the plug on the sup- March 2, 2011. special interests to give up handouts port they need when they get home. I hereby appoint the Honorable KEVIN and tax breaks? By asking the wealthi- That’s what they call supporting the YODER to act as Speaker pro tempore on this est Americans to give back more to the troops.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Infrastructure Needs in Alaska
    S. HRG. 108–349 TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS IN ALASKA FIELD HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON OVERSIGHT OF THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS IN THE STATE OF ALASKA APRIL 14, 2003—PALMER, ALASKA Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92–373 PDF WASHINGTON : 2004 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN CORNYN, Texaa BARBARA BOXER, California LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director (II) CONTENTS Page APRIL 14, 2003—PALMER, ALASKA OPENING STATEMENTS Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ........................... 1 WITNESSES Anderson, Hon. Tim, Mayor, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska ................... 20 Angasan, Trefon, Co-Chair, Board of Directors, Alaska Federation of Natives . 10 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 Barton, Michael, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities .................................................................................................... 6 Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 Boyles, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • $315 Million Bridge to Nowhere Rep. Don Young (R-AK) Is Trying to Sell
    $315 Million Bridge to Nowhere February 9, 2005 Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is trying to sell America’s taxpayers a $315 million “bridge to nowhere” in rural Alaska. As Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, he is in a very good position to get his way. But Rep. Young should be stopped from using his political clout to force federal taxpayers to pay for a bridge that is ridiculous in its scope, unjustified on its merits, and far too expensive for taxpayers to swallow at a time of record federal deficits. If Rep. Young succeeds, tiny Ketchikan, Alaska, a town with less than 8,000 residents (about 13,000 if the entire county is included) will receive hundreds of millions of federal dollars to build a bridge to Gravina Island (population: 50). This bridge will be nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and taller than the Brooklyn Bridge. The Gravina Bridge would replace a 7-minute ferry ride from Ketchikan to Ketchikan Airport on Gravina Island. Project proponents tell the public that the bridge is a transportation necessity, though the ferry system adequately handles passenger traffic between the islands, including traffic to and from the airport.1 Some herald the project as the savior of Ketchikan because it will open up land on Pennock Island to residential development, despite the fact that Gravina’s population has been shrinking. 1 Alaska Airlines, the only commercial passenger airline that flies to Ketchikan, runs seven daily flight routes in the summer and six in the winter. Two ferries, which run every 15 minutes in the summer and every 30 minutes in the winter, provide transportation to and from the airport.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravina Freight Dock Facility Geotechnical Data Report
    April 2020 Prepared by: P N D ENGINEERS, INC. G r a v i n a F r e i g h t D o c k F a c i l i t y G e o t e c h n i c a l I n ve s t i ga t i o n Geo t ec h n i ca l Da t a Re p or t F i n a l Re p or t Prepared for: April 2020 Gravina Freight Dock Facility Geotechnical Data Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices .......................................................................................................................................................................... iii 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 1 2.1 Description ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Site Geography .................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List the Alexander Archipelago Wolf in Southeast
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR PETITION TO LIST THE ALEXANDER ARCHIPELAGO WOLF (CANIS LUPUS LIGONI) IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA AS THREATENED OR ENDANGERED UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT © ROBIN SILVER PETITIONERS CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, ALASKA RAINFOREST DEFENDERS, AND DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE JULY 15, 2020 NOTICE OF PETITION David Bernhardt, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Margaret Everson, Principal Deputy Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1840 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Greg Siekaniec, Alaska Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 [email protected] PETITIONERS Shaye Wolf, Ph.D. Larry Edwards Center for Biological Diversity Alaska Rainforest Defenders 1212 Broadway P.O. Box 6064 Oakland, California 94612 Sitka, Alaska 99835 (415) 385-5746 (907) 772-4403 [email protected] [email protected] Randi Spivak Patrick Lavin, J.D. Public Lands Program Director Defenders of Wildlife Center for Biological Diversity 441 W. 5th Avenue, Suite 302 (310) 779-4894 Anchorage, AK 99501 [email protected] (907) 276-9410 [email protected] _________________________ Date this 15 day of July 2020 2 Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §1533(b), Section 553(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), and 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(a), the Center for Biological Diversity, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, and Defenders of Wildlife petition the Secretary of the Interior, through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) in Southeast Alaska as a threatened or endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Building Blocks of Government”, Chapter 7 from the Book a Primer on Politics (Index.Html) (V
    This is “The Building Blocks of Government”, chapter 7 from the book A Primer on Politics (index.html) (v. 0.0). This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/ 3.0/) license. See the license for more details, but that basically means you can share this book as long as you credit the author (but see below), don't make money from it, and do make it available to everyone else under the same terms. This content was accessible as of December 29, 2012, and it was downloaded then by Andy Schmitz (http://lardbucket.org) in an effort to preserve the availability of this book. Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed. Additionally, per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages. More information is available on this project's attribution page (http://2012books.lardbucket.org/attribution.html?utm_source=header). For more information on the source of this book, or why it is available for free, please see the project's home page (http://2012books.lardbucket.org/). You can browse or download additional books there. i Chapter 7 The Building Blocks of Government PLEASE NOTE: This book is currently in draft form; material is not final. We may sometimes think of government as a monolithic force, acting in concert to achieve its ends like a well-trained team. In fact, government is a lot of people divided into a lot of different parts.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert Quadrangles, Southeastern Alaska
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP I-1807 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE KETCHIKAN AND PRINCE RUPERT QUADRANGLES, SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA By Henry C. Berg, Raymond L. Elliott, and Richard D. Koch INTRODUCTION This pamphlet and accompanying map sheet describe the geology of the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert quadrangles in southeastern Alaska (fig. 1). The report is chiefly the result of a reconnaissance investigation of the geology and mineral re­ sources of the quadrangles by the U.S. Geological Survey dur­ ing 1975-1977 (Berg, 1982; Berg and others, 1978 a, b), but it also incorporates the results of earlier work and of more re­ cent reconnaissance and topical geologic studies in the area (fig. 2). We gratefully acknowledge the dedicated pioneering photointerpretive studies by the late William H. (Hank) Con­ don, who compiled the first 1:250,000-scale reconnaissance geologic map (unpublished) of the Ketchikan quadrangle in the 1950's and who introduced the senior author to the study 130' area in 1956. 57'L__r-'-'~~~;:::::::,~~.::::r----, Classification and nomenclature in this report mainly fol­ low those of Turner (1981) for metamorphic rocks, Turner and Verhoogen (1960) for plutonic rocks, and Williams and others (1982) for sedimentary rocks and extrusive igneous rocks. Throughout this report we assign metamorphic ages to various rock units and emplacement ages to plutons largely on the basis of potassium-argon (K-Ar) and lead-uranium (Pb-U) (zircon) isotopic studies of rocks in the Ketchikan and Prince Rupert quadrangles (table 1) and in adjacent areas. Most of the isotopic studies were conducted in conjunction with recon­ naissance geologic and mineral resource investigations and re­ 0 100 200 KILOMETER sulted in the valuable preliminary data that we cite throughout our report.
    [Show full text]
  • Lobbying, Rent-Seeking, and the Constitution
    HASEN 64 STAN. L. REV. 191 (DO NOT DELETE) 1/14/2012 6:59 PM LOBBYING, RENT-SEEKING, AND THE CONSTITUTION Richard L. Hasen* Politicians across the political spectrum, from Barack Obama to Sarah Pa- lin and Rand Paul, routinely castigate lobbyists for engaging in supposedly cor- rupt activities or having unequal access to elected officials. Since attaining office President Obama has imposed unprecedented new lobbying regulations, and he is not alone: both Congress and state and local legislative bodies have done so in recent years. At the same time, federal courts, relying upon the Supreme Court’s new campaign finance decision in Citizens United v. FEC, have begun striking down lobbying regulations, including important regulations that limit campaign finance activities of lobbyists and impose a waiting period before legislators or legislative staffers may work as lobbyists. Two courts have held such laws could not be sustained on anticorruption grounds, and they are unlikely to be sustained on political equality grounds either. This Article advances an alternative rationale which could support some, though not all, of the recent wave of new lobbying regulations: the state’s interest in promoting national economic welfare. Lobbyists threaten national economic welfare in two ways. First, lobbyists facilitate rent-seeking activities. Rent- seeking occurs when individuals or groups devote resources to capturing gov- ernment transfers, rather than putting them to a productive use, and lobbyists are often the key actors securing such benefits. Second, lobbyists tend to lobby for legislation that is itself an inefficient use of government resources. Part I of this Article provides an overview of the current state of lobbying regulation and lobbying jurisprudence.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravina Access Tongass Narrows Biop AKR-2018-9806
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion for Construction of the Tongass Narrows Project (Gravina Access) Public Consultation Tracking System (PCTS) Number: AKR-2018-9806 Action Agencies: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) Affected Species and Determinations: Is Action Likely Is Action Likely Is Action to Adversely To Destroy or Likely To ESA-Listed Species Status Affect Species or Adversely Jeopardize Critical Modify Critical the Species? Habitat? Habitat? Humpback whale (Megaptera Threatened Yes No N/A novaeangliae) Mexico DPS Consultation Conducted By: National Marine Fisheries Service Issued By: ____________________________________ James W. Balsiger, Ph.D. Administrator, Alaska Region Date: February 6, 2019 Ketchikan Tongass Narrows Project PCTS AKR-2018-9806 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 4 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 4 Terms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 6 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Gravina Island, Alaska
    Geology of Gravina Island, Alaska By HENRY C. BERG GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1373 A description of the stratigraphy, lithology_, general geology_, and mineral resources of a structurally complex 1 00-square-mile island near Ketchikan) Alaska UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1973 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 72-600391 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Ofllee Washiagton, D.C. 20401 • Price $1.ti0 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 Geologic summary................................................................................................. 3 Stratigraphy and lithology.................................................................................. 5 Southwest of Bostwick-Vallenar valley..................................................... 5 Undivided metamorphosed bedded and intrusive rocks.................. 5 Southern belt.................................................................................. 6 Northern belt................................................................................. 7 Altered leucocratic plutonic rocks...................................................... 8 Puppets Formation..............................................................................
    [Show full text]