NANA
Section D Key Quote :
“ It is imperative that AIDEA submit a workforce development and employment plan as a component of the federal review process to verify that AIDEA is conducting the due diligence required to ensure Alaskans , including NANA shareholders , will be trained and ready for employment as part of AAP , should it be authorized .”
– p . 5 NANA COMMENTS
E . Protection of Caribou Migration , Fish and Other Subsistence Resources
Section E is perhaps one of the most important comment sections for NANA . In our comments , NANA stresses the importance of subsistence to our way of life , stating that more than 65 % of NANA ’ s shareholders living in Northwest Alaska rely on subsistence foods for over 50 % of their household food .
NANA also asserts that NANA and NANA alone has the right to determine how to best protect and utilize subsistence resources on our lands . We also said that the studies BLM used to determine impacts to subsistence resources in the DSEIS are incomplete and therefore inaccurate . Our comments state that more studies are needed to provide NANA , subsistence harvesters and the public with an accurate analysis of the potential impacts the project could have on subsistence resources . The comments in this section point to two flawed conclusions in the DSEIS as examples :
• Information in the DSEIS on caribou does not discuss how caribou move with respect to other natural linear features in the landscape and studies that draw conclusions from what may not be a representative sample of collared animals .
• The DSEIS assumption that with covered trucks there is significant dust dispersal is unfounded and overestimates the potential impacts of dust to caribou , fish and vegetation . The studies cited do not clearly differentiate dust from potential truck concentrate dust versus road dust . It does not consider any effective mitigation measures for fugitive dust . More work is needed to understand this matter more thoroughly .
SECTION E KEY QUOTE 1 :
“ However , in the context of evaluating AAP ' s impacts , NANA must ensure that our corporation – alone – retain the authority to manage subsistence uses on our lands on behalf of our shareholders . This right will not , and should not ever , be extended to federal or state agencies including BLM and AIDEA .”
– pp . 6-7 NANA COMMENTS
Most importantly , in Section E , NANA refutes BLM ’ s claim that land that is awaiting transfer to NANA by BLM is “ public land .” BLM agreed in 2014 , pursuant to the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act ( ALTAA ), to transfer approximately 11,000 acres of land to NANA pursuant to Section 12 ( c ) of ANCSA . These lands directly underlie the route proposed under Alternatives A and B and are treated by BLM as “ public lands ” for purposes of the DSEIS . These are not public lands . They are NANA lands that BLM has yet to transfer to NANA .
In our comments , NANA stated that we unequivocally oppose any attempt by state or federal agencies to undermine our land sovereignty .
SECTION E KEY QUOTE 2 :
“ NANA is opposed to any attempt by the federal agencies to erode its sovereignty over its lands , whether through National Historic Preservation Act (" NHPA ") Section 106 or ANILCA Section 810 or any other interpretation of law . NANA – and NANA alone – has the right to manage its lands for subsistence purposes and to balance those goals against its need to responsibly develop its lands in the best interests of its Iñupiat shareholders . ”
F . NANA Land Ownership Rights
– p . 7 NANA COMMENTS
Section F is an essential comment section for NANA regarding ownership and rights of passage over NANA lands . In it , we state that NANA has not consented to a Right-of-Way ( ROW ) across NANA lands related to the project . Furthermore , we strongly assert that any ROW , if granted , will be conditioned upon AAP remaining private in perpetuity .
Defense and Unlocking Alaska Initiatives ). AIDEA has made public statements articulating the legal right to consider taking privately owned land from ANCs like NANA ( without our consent ) to facilitate the construction of AAP . NANA states that BLM must make certain that AIDEA and the state of Alaska do not attempt to access NANA lands or other ANC lands without our explicit consent .
SECTION F KEY QUOTE :
“ BLM must condition any future authorizations to AIDEA on assurances from AIDEA and the state that they will not attempt to access NANA lands without NANA ’ s explicit consent , and that they will not attempt to take NANA lands by eminent domain or otherwise .”
– p . 9 NANA COMMENTS
G . Area of Potential Effects Expansion Pursuant to NHPA Section 106
Section G is a very technical section of our comments that deals with the Programmatic Agreement ( PA ) and the Area of Potential Effects ( APE ) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act ( NHPA ). Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ( ACHP ) a reasonable opportunity to comment .
BLM originally defined the APE for AAP as a one-mile buffer on each side of the project corridor and around all project components . The DSEIS extends that corridor to five ( 5 ) miles on either side of the proposed corridor . NANA comments that the DSEIS offers no rationale for this five-fold increase . Without any explanation for this increase in the study area , it is difficult , if not impossible , to offer constructive comments on the propriety of that scope which would appear arbitrary and capricious without that explanation and justification .
While NANA wants BLM to conduct robust subsistence studies and identify important cultural sites along the proposed corridor , NANA states that BLM has no right to assert jurisdiction over NANA lands under NHPA as NANA is not a signatory to the PA . NANA has a solemn responsibility to manage our lands for the benefit of shareholders of today and the future , consistent with the Iñupiat Ilitqusiat . NANA views the assertion of rights under NHPA over NANA lands as a threat to our land ownership and self-governance by eroding our decision-making abilities . NANA concludes in this section that BLM cannot extend the corridor or modify the PA as it will include NANA lands over which BLM has no right .
SECTION G KEY QUOTE :
“ In short , as demonstrated above , because BLM has no authority to restrict activities on privately held lands owned by NANA , it cannot use the NHPA Section 106 consultation process to do so through expansion of the APE or any other means . Nor can BLM use its contracting authority through a NHPA Section 106 PA to enlarge its jurisdictional authority – only Congress can do that . Indeed , a programmatic agreement cannot take effect on ANC-owned lands unless and until the ANC explicitly agrees to it .”
H . Action Alternative if AAP Were to be Built
– p . 11 NANA COMMENTS
As multiple alternative routes were referred to in the DSEIS , NANA felt it was important to state , for the record , what route would be preferred should the road be built . This designation is NOT support for the road ; rather , it is a clarification of NANA ’ s preference of route should a plan be put together that meets the NANA board ’ s criteria . NANA stated that if the AAP were to move forward , the corporation ’ s preference would be Alternative A .
SECTION H KEY QUOTE :
“ NANA agrees with the DSEIS ’ s conclusion that Alternative A has the least negative impact to subsistence – in particular , the Western Arctic Caribou Herd . In contrast , NANA agrees with the BLM that Alternative C is the least preferred alternative in light of its unreasonably long length which will adversely affect the environment and subsistence resources while making it more difficult to maintain AAP in an Arctic environment and to police it to ensure public safety and prevent trespass .”
– p . 13 NANA COMMENTS
We reference , again , BLM ’ s violation of NANA ’ s lands rights under AATLA and urge BLM to swiftly transfer selected lands to NANA without delay . We also discuss the assertion by AIDEA of its right to take NANA ’ s lands without consent ( in the context of the Statehood
The Hunter | 2024 February
3