Defense Attorneys Claim Small Victory in Bristol Bay Legal Battle

Glacier Bay, Alaska, photo taken in 1996 by Aschwin Prein of The Netherlands.

Attorney at Law Geoffrey Y. Parker and Thomas E. Meacham, Anchorage, appeared in Supreme Court representing several tribal entities, and Daniel S. Sullivan, Attorney General, Juneau, representing the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Tom Irwin, Commissioner of Natural Resources in a lands case involving the Bristol Bay.

Legal action filed by the Nondalton Tribal Council, Koliganek Village Council, New Stuyahok Traditional Council, Ekwok Village Council, Curyung Tribal Council, Levelock Village Council, AIFMA Cooperative Inc. d/b/a The Alaska Fishermen’s Marketing Association, and Trout Unlimited, Inc., against the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) hit a snag Tuesday, January 25, 2012 for the Tribal entities. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld DNR’s process they use at this time for adopting area land use plans. Alaska Supreme Court agreed with DNR that area plans are not regulations, but sent the remainder of the issues back to the Alaska Superior Court to sort through.

Court documents state “Because it was error for the superior court to conclude that the Bristol Bay Area Plan is a regulation, we REVERSE the superior court’s ruling that the BBAP is a regulation and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The tribal entities say that DNR’s 2005 Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP, the Plan) was unlawful, and intimates that current DNR employees, being former employees in the mining industry, have, by “discarding the 2984 BBAP and adopting the 2005 BBAP, DNR has committed numerous unlawful acts and omissions.” DNR called the ruling “a significant win for DNR and impacts the management of state lands.”

DNR says that “Area land use plans guide management of state-owned lands. The plaintiffs, including six tribal councils, sued the state over the area plan for Bristol Bay. Among other assertions, the plaintiffs argued that the term “regulation” included the Bristol Bay Area Plan (and by extension all other area plans). DNR has adopted the numerous area plans in Alaska through a process that differs from the process required to adopt regulations. Had the Alaska Supreme Court held that area plans are regulations, DNR would have had to readopt all area plans. Instead, the Alaska Supreme Court agreed with DNR that area plans are not regulations.”

“The case is a win overall for DNR and the state’s land use planning process remains intact, even though the Alaska Supreme Court did not dismiss the case entirely,” Acting Attorney General Rick Svobodny said.

Photo Credit Photographer