Opinion ID: 2629196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether 5 AAC 99.015 Is Consistent with Its Authorizing Statutory Provision, AS 16.05.258(c)

Text: We first determine whether the regulation is consistent with its authorizing statute, [15] AS 16.05.258(c). This inquiry ensures that the agency has not exceeded the power delegated by the legislature. [16] The tribes argue that the procedure the joint boards employed in adopting 5 AAC 99.015 was not consistent with the statutory design of AS 16.05.258(c). The tribes acknowledge that AS 16.05.258(c) allows the joint boards a certain degree of discretion in establishing the boundaries of nonsubsistence areas. But the tribes contend that the joint boards' discretion is not absolute. In support of their argument, the tribes rely on our opinion in Native Village of Elim v. State. [17] We there noted that the Alaska Board of Fisheries' discretion to identify fish stocks used for subsistence based on the socio-economic criteria listed in AS 16.05.258(c) was limited by two principles: first, the boundaries that the Board ultimately adopts must be reasonably related to the twelve criteria; second, the boundaries must be consistent with the legislature's purpose to provide a preference for subsistence uses. [18] The tribes contend that the joint boards' procedure violated the guiding principles of Native Village of Elim and is therefore inconsistent with the statute. They assert that the joint boards' procedure skewed the outcomeeffectively sweeping the [t]ribes' communities into a vast nonsubsistence area without independently considering their distinct characteristics. The tribes' argument impliedly attacks two of the joint boards' procedural decisions: first, by drawing proposed nonsubsistence boundaries before applying the statutory criteria; and second, by combining the Anchorage-MatSu proposed nonsubsistence area with the Kenai Peninsula proposed nonsubsistence area for the purposes of applying the socio-economic criteria. Relying on the principles enunciated in Native Village of Elim, the superior court held that the joint boards' overall approach was inconsistent with the legislature's purpose of providing a preference for subsistence uses. The court observed that the joint boards placed the cart before the horse by drawing large nonsubsistence boundaries before applying the socio-economic criteria. The superior court noted that such an approach fundamentally diminishes the relevance of the criteria with respect to individual communities, which in turn potentially dilutes otherwise recognizable subsistence characteristics. The superior court further determined that AS 16.05.258(c) required the joint boards to apply the ... socio-economic criteria to individual areas or communities, evaluate the results and [then] derive a ... nonsubsistence classification before dealing with boundaries. (Original emphasis.) On appeal, the state argues that the superior court erred in ruling that the joint boards' procedure for adopting its regulation was inconsistent with AS 16.05.258(c). The state contends that AS 16.05.258(c) does not specify a procedure for the joint boards to follow and grants the joint boards a certain amount of discretion to decide when in the process of establishing nonsubsistence areas the joint boards may start drawing boundaries. The state's arguments are persuasive. Indeed, AS 16.05.258(c) does not specify a particular procedure for the joint boards to follow. The statute only requires the joint boards to consider the relative importance of subsistence in the context of the totality of the following socio-economic characteristics to identify nonsubsistence areas: (1) the social and economic structure; (2) the stability of the economy; (3) the extent and the kinds of employment for wages, including full-time, part-time, temporary, and seasonal employment; (4) the amount and distribution of cash income among those domiciled in the area or community; (5) the cost and availability of goods and services to those domiciled in the area or community; (6) the variety of fish and game species used by those domiciled in the area or community; (7) the seasonal cycle of economic activity; (8) the percentage of those domiciled in the area or community participating in hunting and fishing activities or using wild fish and game; (9) the harvest levels of fish and game by those domiciled in the area or community; (10) the cultural, social, and economic values associated with the taking and use of fish and game; (11) the geographic locations where those domiciled in the area or community hunt and fish; (12) the extent of sharing and exchange of fish and game by those domiciled in the area or community; (13) additional similar factors the boards establish by regulation to be relevant to their determinations under this subsection. Alaska Statute 16.05.258(c) does not expressly preclude the joint boards from drawing starting boundaries before applying the criteria, nor does it specify the order in which the joint boards must apply the criteria. [19] The joint boards' decision to start with nonsubsistence boundaries before applying the criteria was not inconsistent with AS 16.05.258(c). In Native Village of Elim, we observed that AS 16.05.258(c) allows the joint boards discretion to draw boundaries that are appropriate for a given set of circumstances. [20] We approvingly cited an informal opinion of the attorney general discussing the nonsubsistence criteria of AS 16.05.258(c). [21] It stated that the joint boards may choose almost any boundary as a starting point for their deliberations. [22] Although they encompass relatively large areas, the boundaries chosen by the joint boards as a starting point here were not improper. The joint boards derived the starting boundaries for the nonsubsistence areas from the boundaries of what they had previously classified as non-rural areas, per the 1986 subsistence law limiting subsistence use to residents domiciled in rural areas of the state. [23] The attorney general's informal opinion noted that the statutory criteria set out in AS 16.05.258(c) are substantially similar to the regulatory criteria adopted by the joint boards to determine whether a particular area of Alaska was `rural' under the 1986 subsistence law. [24] It also observed that in many circumstances, the new nonsubsistence areas may not be different from the areas that were identified as [non]rural under the 1986 law. [25] Given the similarity of the rural criteria and the subsistence criteria, the joint boards did not exceed their discretion in using the non-rural boundaries as starting points for their nonsubsistence determinations. Ultimately, the tribes appear to argue that beginning, rather than ending, with a nonsubsistence boundary prejudiced the outcome of the joint boards' deliberations. But there is no constitutional preference for a subsistence or nonsubsistence starting point for any given community. Nothing in the statute suggests that the board must first apply the statutory criteria to individual communities, like Knik, Eklutna, or Ninilchik, before drawing initial boundariesnor do the principles enunciated in Native Village of Elim. Starting with a nonsubsistence area did not permit the joint boards to avoid the responsibility of adopting boundaries reasonably related to the twelve criteria. [26] And starting with a nonsubsistence area does not necessarily either dictate an endpoint or defeat the legislative preference for subsistence uses. [27] The procedure does not drive the substance in this case. And although the boundaries must be consistent with the legislative preference for subsistence uses, that does not mean that the preference itself determines the boundaries; if it did, it would undercut the significance of the statutory factors. The tribes also challenge the joint boards' procedural decision to include the tribes' communities within such a large geographical area when applying the statutory criteria. The tribes maintain that the huge geographic area selected for consideration could not help but dictate the outcome.... [A]ny community in Alaska, even an entirely subsistence-dependent one, would have no chance, if joined with Anchorage for analysis, of showing its true character as a place where dependence upon subsistence is a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life. Using the non-rural boundaries as a guide, the joint boards initially included the communities of Knik and Eklutna within the Anchorage-MatSu Proposed Nonsubsistence Area, and included the Ninilchik community and the Kenaitze Indian Tribe within the Kenai Peninsula Proposed Nonsubsistence Area. During deliberations, the joint boards decided to first apply criterion eleven (AS 16.05.258(c)(11)) to each of the proposed nonsubsistence areas. Alaska Statute 16.05.258(c)(11) required the joint boards to consider the geographic locations where those domiciled in the area or community hunt or fish. [28] The joint boards then decided to apply the other criteria to the geographic locations identified by criterion eleven. When applying criterion eleven to the Anchorage-MatSu Proposed Nonsubsistence Area, the joint boards decided to combine that area with the Kenai Peninsula Proposed Nonsubsistence Area because of the subsistence use patterns of Anchorage residents. [29] The tribes argue that the joint boards applied criterion eleven in a manner unintended by AS 16.05.258(c). They argue that the statute does not direct [the joint boards] to establish the boundaries of nonsubsistence areas based upon criterion 11. The state argues that the joint boards' deliberations and written findings show that although the [b]oards started with [criterion eleven], by the end, they had considered all twelve. The state's argument is persuasive. As we stated above, the statute does not dictate the order in which the joint boards must consider the statutory criteria when they determine a nonsubsistence boundary, only that they consider the relative importance of subsistence in the context of the totality of the socio-economic criteria. [30] The joint boards' decision to use large nonsubsistence starting areas or even to combine the two proposed areas did not exceed their discretion. Although the boundaries encompassed relatively large areas, we recognized in Native Village of Elim that an area or community as the words are used in AS 16.05.258(c), may encompass several subdistricts grouped together. [31] It is within the joint boards' discretion to combine discrete subareas for the purposes of applying the statutory criteria. Ultimately, the size of the geographical area that the joint boards used in applying the statutory criteria appears to be relevant only to the extent that some of the information the joint boards relied on was also organized by these larger areas. For example, the reports of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF & G) relied on by the joint boards covered the Anchorage-MatSu Proposed Nonsubsistence Area and the Kenai Peninsula Proposed Nonsubsistence Area, respectively, and contained only a small amount of information about the tribes' communities. But the joint boards also considered public testimony from tribe members and other evidence submitted by the tribes about their particular communities. We will, however, discuss in Part III.C whether the joint boards considered evidence available to them when they made their subsistence determinations.