Opinion ID: 2629196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ninilchik

Text: We also conclude that the joint boards gave a hard look at the evidence relevant to the Ninilchik community. The Ninilchik Indian Council presented evidence of the Ninilchik residents' unemployment rates, relevant under subsection .258(c)(3) (extent and the kinds of employment for wages). The tribe also presented evidence germane to the following statutory criteria: subsection .258(c)(6) (variety of fish and game used); subsection .258(c)(8) (percentage of those domiciled in the area or community participating in hunting and fishing activities or using wild fish and game); subsection.258(c)(9) (harvest levels of fish and game); subsection .258(c)(10) (cultural, social, and economic values associated with the taking and use of fish and game); and subsection.258(c)(12) (extent of sharing and exchange of fish and game). A Ninilchik resident also testified before the joint boards. Dr. Fall presented evidence to the joint boards on the social and economic structure and the area's harvest levels. ADF & G's Kenai Peninsula Nonsubsistence Area proposal reported the yields for commercial fishers in Ninilchik, Ninilchik's per capita wild food harvest for 1982, and the extent of sharing between households. During their deliberations on Ninilchik, board members shared personal observations of the community. Board Member Franzmann noted that Ninilchik was a very commercial city. Other board members noted Ninilchik's economic growth, and the area's relative affluence. The chair also discussed the incomes of the Ninilchik residents. Board Member Wallen commented that Ninilchik's harvest levels fell somewhere in between most of the communities on the Kenai. Board Member Lyons also commented on the tribe's cultural traditions, noting the testimony of a elder Ninilchik resident who was distressed by the increased amount of commercial fisheries. The tribe challenges the joint boards' reliance on the personal unsubstantiated opinions of board members. This argument is without merit because board members may rely on their own expertise to assist them in making subsistence determinations. [39] The tribe has not pointed to any particular evidence before the joint boards that the boards did not consider. Having reviewed the joint boards' deliberations, we conclude that the joint boards gave a hard look at the evidence regarding the Ninilchik community. We therefore hold that the regulation's inclusion of Ninilchik in the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area was reasonable and not arbitrary. D. Whether It Was Reasonable and Not Arbitrary To Include the Kenai Peninsula Within the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area The superior court judgment awarding summary judgment to the tribes declared 5 AAC 99.015(a)(3) invalid to the extent the regulation included Knik, Eklutna, and Ninilchik in the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area. But the judgment held that the regulation's inclusion of the Kenai Peninsula in the nonsubsistence area, except for the community of Ninilchik and other areas already excepted by the regulation, was not invalid. It stated that these other areas were not litigated by the parties. The Kenaitze Indian Tribe, the original plaintiff in this suit, has filed a cross-appeal from this ruling; it argues that at every stage in the ten-year litigation, it has contested the validity of the [j]oint [b]oards' inclusion of the tribe's hunting and fishing grounds within the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai nonsubsistence area. It seems to be correct, as the tribe argues and the state concedes, that the tribe did litigate this issue in the superior court. Before the joint boards convened in November 1992, the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, along with the Ninilchik Traditional Council, submitted to the joint boards written comments that asked the joint boards to exclude the Kenai Peninsula from any nonsubsistence area under AS 16.05.258(c). In December 1992, after the joint boards established the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area, the Kenaitze Indian Tribe filed an amended complaint seeking a declaratory judgment invalidating the joint boards' inclusion of the tribe's hunting and fishing areas within the nonsubsistence area. In February 2002 the Ninilchik Traditional Council, the Native Village of Eklutna, and the Knik Tribal Council intervened. Many of the arguments in the tribes' motion for summary judgment applied to the members of all of the tribes, but some parts of the motion specifically addressed the Kenaitze Indian Tribe's claim that its hunting and fishing grounds on the Kenai Peninsula should not have been included in the nonsubsistence area. Because the issue was litigated in the superior court, one possible remedy for this error would be remand to the superior court. But given the long delays in this litigation (the Kenaitze Indian Tribe first filed suit in 1991) and the fact that the joint boards' regulation was promulgated in 1992, we are reluctant to remand to the superior court to carry out the same review that we have already conducted. We therefore think it is better in this case for us to consider the merits of whether the regulation is invalid, rather than remand to the superior court, with the potential for further appeals. As part of our consideration of the validity of the regulation with respect to Ninilchik, Knik, and Eklutna in the state's appeal discussed above, we have reviewed the evidence before the joint boards and the comments of the board members about evidence pertaining to the Kenaitze Indian Tribe and the Kenai Peninsula. The ADF & G report covering the Kenai Peninsula included information on the City of Kenai, where many Kenaitze members reside. The information pertained to some of the statutory criteria, including harvest levels and the percentage of City of Kenai residents engaging in hunting and fishing activities. The report specifically mentions the Kenaitze Indian Tribe in discussing AS 16.05.258(c)(10) (cultural, social, and economic values associated with the taking and use of fish and game), and in noting that the tribe's use of fish and game may reflect values associated with [Dena'ina] cultural traditions. The tribe submitted to the joint boards evidence that included a statement opposing the classification of Game Management Unit 15 (encompassing the majority of the Kenai Peninsula) as a nonsubsistence area. The statement included information that bore on several of the statutory criteria. The statement also summarized the results of surveys taken by tribe members. The surveys themselves were also submitted to the joint boards. Some of the tribe's members also testified in the public hearings the joint boards conducted. Dr. Fall testified that he did not have much more to add to the public testimony. He also noted that the Division of Subsistence had never collected any information specifically on members of the Kenaitze tribe because the division did not organize its research in that manner. The only information Dr. Fall had on the tribe was contained in studies conducted for the City of Kenai. The joint boards also received information on the tribe's educational fishery. It is evident from the joint boards' deliberations that the boards' members considered the public testimony and other evidence the tribe submitted. After reviewing the public testimony, Board Member Elias characterized the testimony as inconsistent, particularly the information the tribe provided on its members' incomes. Board members also discussed the testimony of a tribe member emphasizing the importance of maintaining the tribe's educational fishery. But ultimately the joint boards had difficulty attempting to identify a discrete, geographical area in which the Kenaitze Indian Tribe was located for the purposes of applying the statutory criteria. Board Member Elias commented that members of the tribe have moved all over, and they've dispersed in an area where you cannot define a single, local area to where the tribe does hold a ground or an area. Board Member Carlisle also noted that the difficulty ... in trying to isolate the Kenaitze group is that they have spread out considerably on the Kenai Peninsula. They don't have a core village, if you will, such as Ninilchik. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the joint boards gave a hard look at the evidence presented and that the regulation is not invalid for failing to designate the Kenai Peninsula as a subsistence area. A remand is not needed because the issue does not require the resolution of any disputed issues of material factas evidenced by the plaintiffs' willingness to submit the issue to the superior court on summary judgment.
We consequently REVERSE the summary judgment that declared invalid the inclusion of Knik, Eklutna, and Ninilchik in the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area, and AFFIRM the summary judgment that declared valid the inclusion of the Kenai Peninsula in the nonsubsistence area.