State of Alaska Appeals Federal Subsistence Board Decisions Affecting the Kenai Peninsula and Gustavus
The State of Alaska, through the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), recently filed three Requests for Reconsideration (RFRs) asking the Federal Subsistence Board to revisit and rescind its recent decisions affecting several important Kenai Peninsula and Southeast fisheries.
The RFRs, filed by the State on January 16, 2006, request the Federal Subsistence Board to reconsider the following three actions taken at the Board’s November 16-17, 2006 meeting. These three actions outlined below include links to State of Alaska documents relative to these actions.
Action 1:
A finding, made without supporting evidence, that the community of Ninilchik has customarily and traditionally used all fish in all water bodies located within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and Chugach National Forest, including the upper Kenai River and the Russian River. These are areas located many miles away from Ninilchik and are rarely used by Ninilchik residents.
- State Letter to FSB Chairman Fleagle, Ninilchik/Kenai
- State RFR request to the FSB, Ninilchik/Kenai
- State RFR Ninilchik/Kenai attachments
Action 2:
An out-of-cycle Special Action granting the community of Ninilchik a winter gillnet trout fishery through the ice on Tustumena Lake.
- State Letter to FSB Chairman Fleagle, Ninilchik/Tustumena Lake
- State RFR request to the FSB, Ninilchik/Tustumena Lake
Action 3:
A finding, made without supporting evidence, that the community of Gustavus has customarily and traditionally used specific fish in Sections 14B and 14C of Southeast Alaska fisheries management District 14. Gustavus is surrounded by the Glacier Bay National Park which is closed to subsistence use; the finding applied to more distant and rarely used areas.
- State Letter to FSB Chairman Fleagle, Gustavus
- State RFR request to the FSB, Gustavus
- State RFR Gustavus attachments
These three actions give a priority use to residents of these communities, threaten to cause restrictions on other users, and were taken without following the federal Board’s own regulations. The State raised formal objections during the Board’s November meeting, but the Board improperly barred the State from participating during the Board’s deliberations. As a result, both the Board actions and the procedures used to adopt them are in error and contrary to law.
