District of Alaska – Page 8

Federal Polar Bear Critical Habitat Rule Vacated

January 24, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are materials in Alaska Oil and Gas Assn. v. Salazar (D. Alaska):

From the opinion:

Plaintiffs contend that the Service proceeded with an unprecedented critical habitat designation despite the Service’s finding that such designation “will not result in any present or anticipated future conservation benefit to the polar bear species ” and is not “ ‘essential’ to the conservation of the species.” Plaintiffs further opine that: (1) such designation will “have significant adverse ramifications for the people who live and work on the North Slope, for Alaska’s oil and gas industry, and for the State of Alaska”; (2) the designation will “leave the species worse off because it is impairing the cooperative relationship that the … [Service] has sought to build with the Alaska Natives”; (3) the Service’s failure to exclude “native-owned lands and rural communities” will “disproportionately harm Alaska Natives and other North Slope Borough residents”; (4) the Service failed “to engage in meaningful consultation with [the State of Alaska and with] Alaska Natives early in the rulemaking process”; (5) the Service’s inclusion of “a one-mile no disturbance zone as part of the barrier island habitat unit of the designation … exceeds its authority under the ESA”; (6) “[t]he Service failed to adequately consider and include in the calculation of the total economic impacts of the designation the substantial indirect incremental economic impacts”; (7) “[t]he Service failed to provide Alaska with an adequate written justification as required by the ESA … for promulgating a … designation that conflicts with the comments submitted to the” Service; (8) the Service failed to address the area exclusion requests by Alaska “and failed to adequately consider whether the benefits of excluding those areas were outweighed by the benefits of including them”; (9) “[t]he Service improperly included areas that it concedes were not occupied by polar bears at the time of the designation”; and (10) “[t]he Service improperly included areas as critical habitat without determining that those areas contained the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the polar bear.” Plaintiffs seek the invalidation of the Final Rule and request that the Court vacate and remand the Rule.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Fed. Court Jurisdiction over ANCSA Claims

August 20, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Cook Inlet Region, Inc. v. Rude:

Rude & Rudolph Opening Brief

Cook Inlet Region Answer Brief

Rude & Rudolph Reply Brief

CA9 opinion

Lower court materials:

DCT Order Granting Partial Summary J

Cook Inlet Complaint

Federal Court Enjoins Actions of Fake Tribal Court Harassing Native Village Corporation

July 10, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the materials in Koniag, Inc. v. Kanam (D. Alaska):

DCT Order Granting PI

Koniag Motion for PI

Kanam Opposition

Koniag Reply

We posted previously on this case here, here, and here.

More Materials on Koniag v. Kanum

April 18, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here is a complaint filed by Kurt Kanam against the parties in United States v. Washington in the “Karluk Tribal Court” from last fall:

Kanam v All Fish Case Parties, Complaint 11-19-2011

Update in Koniag v. Kanam — Some Evidence that “Karluk Tribal Court” Isn’t a Real Tribal Court At All

April 16, 2012April 16, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher10 Comments

You may recall our posting on the recent complaint in Koniag, Inc. v. Kanam (and the Karluk Tribal Court). There is some evidence that the “Karluk Tribal Court” is not attached to a federally recognized tribe, and may be a total fraud.

Here are some additional materials in the ongoing federal suit:

Koniag Motion for TRO

Karluk Tribal Court Materials [Note the location of the tribal court — it’s in Washington state, a thousand miles from the Native village on Kodiak Island]

First Amended Complaint

Here is an order issued by the “Karluk Tribal Court” purporting to declare a Washington state court ICWA proceeding invalid: Continue reading →

Update in Alaska Native Challenge to USFWS Designation of Critical Habitat for the Polar Bear

February 27, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new materials (excluding all the oil and gas industry briefs):

Alaska Native Motion for Summary J

US Response to Motion for PI

Cook Inlet Regional Corp. Tax Suit against Chickaloon Native Village

December 6, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

CIRI Complaint

Arctic Slope Regional Corp. Challenge to USFWS Designation of Critical Habitat for Polar Bears

June 7, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Arctic Slope Regional Corp. v. Salazar (D. Alaska):

Arctic Slope Polar Bear Complaint

The summary from the complaint:

1. When polar bears were recently listed as a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), it triggered a statutory duty for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) to designate critical habitat to the extent prudent and determinable. The Service recognized that no on-the-ground North Slope activities (e.g., subsistence uses, oil and gas exploration activities) posed a threat to the species. Instead, the Service forecast that climate change was likely to cause sea ice to recede in the coming decades and that this would have a negative impact on polar bears.

2. The polar bear critical habitat designation is unprecedented in important ways. First, it is far and away the largest designation in history – covering 187,157 square miles along the North Slope. Second, it is not expected to result in a single additional conservation measure to help polar bears. The Service does not have the tools to address climate change, so instead it mechanically applied the critical habitat designation even though this action provides little to no assistance to polar bears and risks crippling the North Slope villages and Alaska Native communities in its path.

3. Alaska Natives have been the Arctic’s primary conservation stewards for thousands of years, carefully balancing subsistence needs and cultural traditions with a profound respect for polar bears and the other wildlife that share their habitat. As repeatedly recognized by the Service, Alaska Natives and other residents of the North Slope Borough are the key partners for any conservation efforts directed at polar bears. Their voluntary conservation efforts have been vital to getting the polar bear population to its current healthy status.

4. The Service’s designation of 187,157 square miles of critical habitat will disproportionately harm Alaska Natives and other North Slope Borough residents, the people who share habitat with polar bears and whose livelihood depends on those lands. As the Service has acknowledged, the listing of polar bears as a “threatened” species and the resulting critical habitat designation are both driven entirely by impacts associated with climate change. Alaska Natives and Borough residents did not cause and cannot halt the climate change at issue. The imposition of added government regulation pursuant to this critical habitat designation will not address the primary threat to polar bears, the loss of sea ice due to climate change.

5. Alaska Natives living on the North Slope are heavily dependent on their natural resources for survival. In particular, Alaska Native Regional and Village corporations in the area are employers, landowners, lessors of subsurface rights, and business partners with oil and gas companies and others working in the region. As a result of the critical habitat designation, the consultation requirements under Section 7 are expected to impair the ability of Alaska Natives to benefit from their natural resources, leading to a loss of jobs, income, tax revenues, royalties, and dividends for Native shareholders. Even relatively modest economic impacts from a designation could force Alaska Natives to abandon their ancestral villages in search of work.