Opinion ID: 478414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: subsistence rights

Text: 67 Sierra-Angoon assert that section 810 of ANILCA, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3120, requires subsistence evaluations of various government actions: the Secretary's conveyance of Cube Cove to Shee Atika under section 506(c) of ANILCA; the issuance of permits by the EPA and Corps for the log transfer facility under sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Secs. 1342 and 1344; the Bureau of Indian Affairs' loan to Shee Atika; and the Forest Service's duty pursuant to ANILCA Sec. 503(c) and ANCSA Sec. 22(k) to protect the monument lands. Section 810(a) provides in relevant part: 68 In determining whether to withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands under any provision of law authorizing such actions, the head of the Federal agency having primary jurisdiction over such lands or his designee shall evaluate the effect of such use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and needs, the availability of other lands for the purposes sought to be achieved, and other alternatives which would reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes. 69 As the language indicates, this provision affects agency determinations of whether to lease or otherwise permit the disposition of public lands. Village of Gambell v. Clark, 746 F.2d 572, 579 (9th Cir.1984). The district court concluded that the government had taken no action affecting public lands and that section 810(a) was therefore inapplicable. 70 Sierra-Angoon argue that the spillover effect of the private use of Cube Cove on the subsistence use of the public lands on the rest of Admiralty Island brings the government's actions within section 810(a). The government's actions, they argue, make the logging operation both possible (the conveyance) and economically feasible (the log transfer facility permit, the loan), and the logging operation in turn affects the public lands of the monument. Sierra-Angoon urge the court to read section 810 broadly, see Gambell, 746 F.2d at 581, and to focus on the actual effects on public lands of the government actions authorizing use of private lands. Cf. Adler v. Lewis, 675 F.2d 1085, 1091-92 (9th Cir.1982) (under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1653(f), highway construction activities that significantly adversely affect public park lands use the park lands). 6 71 Even if we were to read public lands this broadly, however, subsistence evaluations would not be required here for several reasons. First, none of the agencies Sierra-Angoon cite has primary jurisdiction over the public lands used for subsistence, as required by section 810. Second, the agency that does have such jurisdiction, the Department of Agriculture, has taken no action regarding the Cube Cove land that would invoke section 810. Cf. Alaska v. Andrus, 591 F.2d 537, 540 (9th Cir.1979) (inaction insufficient to require an EIS under NEPA). In addition, other provisions of ANILCA tend to belie the applicability of section 810 to private lands. E.g., ANILCA Sec. 802(3), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3112(3) (Federal land managing agencies ... shall cooperate with adjacent landowners and land managers, including Native Corporations....); id. Sec. 810(d), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3120(d) (After compliance ..., the head of the appropriate Federal agency may manage or dispose of public lands under his primary jurisdiction....). 72 It seems likely that, as Sierra-Angoon argue, a subsistence evaluation of the government's Cube Cove actions would be beneficial and consistent with the purpose of ANILCA. The plain language of the statute, however, cannot fairly be read to require such an evaluation for actions regarding private lands. Sierra-Angoon argue strenuously that they are not advocating regulating private lands but only spillover use of public lands. This seems a distinction without a difference. We affirm the district court's holding that section 810 is inapplicable to Shee Atika's use of Cube Cove. 73 Sierra-Angoon also claim that Shee Atika's activities will violate the Angoon residents' rights to continued subsistence uses of Admiralty Island under section 506(a)(2) of ANILCA, 94 Stat. at 2407. Section 506(a)(2) provides: 74 Nothing in this section shall affect the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by residents of Admiralty Island, consistent with title VIII [ANILCA Secs. 801-816, 16 U.S.C. Secs. 3111-3126] of this Act. 75 The district court found that section 506(a)(2) did not apply to the conveyance to Shee Atika under section 506(c). We agree. As used in the statute, this section refers only to section 506(a), which granted other Admiralty Island lands to a different Native Corporation, Kootznoowoo, Incorporated, and not to the whole of section 506, which includes the grant to Shee Atika. Each of subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 506 involves a separate Native Corporation and is independent of the others. Subsection 506(a)(2) is placed between two other provisions, subsections 506(a)(1) and 506(a)(3), that exclusively concern the Kootznoowoo grant. We conclude that Congress intended subsection 506(a)(2) to apply only to the Kootznoowoo grant. 76 Sierra-Angoon argue that this section is the whole of section 506 and that the restrictions of 506(a)(2) are compatible with the conveyance to Shee Atika because the land was conveyed for the purpose of exchange (discussed supra, section IV). They also argue that section 506(a)(2) would be superfluous if it did not apply to the Shee Atika inholding because Angoon's subsistence use of public lands is already protected by sections 503(b), (c), and (f)(1), and title VIII. Under our view that this section is only section 506(a), however, the provision has meaning and yet does not affect the Shee Atika conveyance. 77 In a similar vein, Sierra-Angoon argue that the protections of section 506(a)(2) must be broader than those of title VIII or the former is superfluous. However, Congress probably included the phrase consistent with title VIII to ensure section 506(a) did not undermine title VIII, not to provide broader protections. 78 Sierra-Angoon also assert that the Secretary breached his duty under ANILCA Sec. 811, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3121, to guarantee residents of Angoon access to their subsistence lands. Section 811(a) provides: 79 The Secretary shall ensure that rural residents engaged in subsistence uses shall have reasonable access to subsistence resources on the public lands. 80 Sierra-Angoon assert that the Angoon residents' traditional use of Cube Cove as a point of access to the other public lands in the Monument requires the Secretary to restrict Shee Atika's logging, road building, and other projects in Cube Cove to accomodate that use. Although Shee Atika's activities may have some of the effects Sierra-Angoon assert, the language of section 811(a) must be stretched a long way to allow--much less require--the Secretary to restrict the use of private land to assure access to subsistence resources on public lands. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on this issue.