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

Heading: Knik and Eklutna

Text: We first consider whether the joint boards gave a hard look at the Knik and Eklutna communities, given the information available to the joint boards. [38] Based on our review of the record, it appears to us that the tribes offered evidence that arguably fit within these statutory criteria: subsection.258(c)(1) (social and economic structure); subsection .258(c)(3) (extent and kinds of employment for wages); subsection.258(c)(4) (amount and distribution of cash income); 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); subsection.258(c)(11) (geographic locations where those domiciled in the area or community fish or hunt); and subsection.258(c)(12) (extent of sharing and exchange of fish and game). The joint boards also heard testimony about Knik and Eklutna from Dr. James A. Fall, a regional program manager for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Although Dr. Fall did not mention all of the statutory criteria, he presented some evidence that fit within many of the same criteria as the tribes' evidence. The Anchorage-MatSu Nonsubsistence Area proposal prepared by ADF & G briefly mentioned that the residents of Knik and Eklutna still consider the use of wild resources to be of cultural, economic, and nutritional importance. The joint boards' members did not explicitly mention each criterion during their deliberations on Knik and Eklutna, nor were they required to do so, but their discussion reflects that they gave a hard look at the available evidence. The chair of the joint boards acknowledged that he had read the tribes' evidence twice, characterizing some of it as difficult to understand. The chair specifically discussed the tribes' evidence on income patterns, the percentage of food supply coming from wild fish and game per household, and the extent to which the tribes were dependent on subsistence foods. After considering the tribes' evidence and Dr. Fall's testimony, the chair concluded that he did not see any trends that made him think Knik and Eklutna were distinguishable from nonsubsistence areas. The tribes argue that to the limited extent the joint boards considered their communities, the joint boards focused exclusively on the communities' economies. But although the board members' comments on Knik and Eklutna primarily focused on the communities' economic characteristics, many of the board members also expressed general concerns about the effect on the culture and the traditions of the tribesimplying that the board members were cognizant of the tribes' culture and lifestyles and sensitive to them. Based on our review of the joint boards' deliberations, we conclude that the joint boards gave a hard look at the evidence regarding the Knik and Eklutna communities. The regulation's inclusion of Knik and Eklutna within the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area was therefore reasonable and not arbitrary.