Respondents Brief — Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Alaska Conservation Council (No. 07-990)

Supreme Court brief2009

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FILED

% | SEP 17 2008

Nos. 07-984, 07-990

BK |

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

COEUR ALASKA, INC.,

Petitioner,

SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, ET AL.,

Respondents.

STATE OF ALASKA,

Petitioner,

Vv.

SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, ET AL.,

Respondents.

On Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit

BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT GOLDBELT, INC.

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

DAVID C. CROSBY

Counsel of Record

5280 Thane Road

Juneau, AK 99801-7717

(907) 586-6262

Counsel for Respondent Goldbelt, Inc.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Respondent Goldbelt, Inc. (“Goldbelt”) sup-

ports and incorporates the questions presented in the

briefs on the merits filed by Coeur Alaska, Inc.

(“Coeur”) and the State of Alaska.

2. If this Court reverses the decision of the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals vacating Coeur’s 404 permit

for tailings disposal in Lower Slate Lake, should it

also reverse that Court’s decision to vacate Goldbelt’s

404 permit based solely on the erroneous assumption

that the Cascade Point marine terminal is contingent

upon Coeur’s 404 permit and proposed method of

tailings disposal?

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT

Respondent Goldbelt, Inc. adopts the statement

of the parties to the proceedings in the petitions filed

by Coeur Alaska, Inc. and the State of Alaska.

The corporate disclosure statement included in

Goldbelt’s brief in support of petitioners remains ac-

curate.

lil

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BRIEF.IN SUPPORT OF GOLDBELT’S

REQUEST FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF ...........

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .....................:000c000e

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......0.... eee

IEE Sac tichidinchitisiibiniininiiepnicenineinesannmencaine

1. IF THE COURT GRANTS THE RELIEF

REQUESTED WITH RESPECT TO COEUR’S

404 PERMIT, SIMILAR RELIEF MUST BE

GRANTED TO GOLDBELT WITH RESPECT

To ITS CASCADE POINT PERMIT .................02-.

II. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS OF

PUBLIC POLICY AND JUSTICE ALSO

SUPPORT GRANTING RELIEF TO

a sestunianaioune

IIIT sci riences eee

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v.

Volpe, 401 US. 468 (1971) ....cccccccccccsescceeses

City of Angoon v. Marsh,

749 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1984)...

Koniag, Inc. v. Koncor Forest Res.,

39 F.3d 991 (Sth Cir. 1984)..................004..

Power & Light Co. v. Lorion,

ee Ee HE SD ci crtccremitocessccosccnsevensveceres

Statutes

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 5

Sy it IEEE sasticdhinectiaiecinadigidinadneddesonedesones

ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS

CONSERVATION AcT (“ANILCA”), Pub.

L. 96-487, 94 Stat. 2371 (December 2,

ANILCA § 503(b), 94 Stat. 2399. .........0.....

ANILCA § 506(b), 94 Stat. 2409..........00...

ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT,

(““ANCSA”), 43 U.S.C. § 1613(h)(8)...........

CLEAN WATER ACT, 33 U.S.C. § 1344..............

Page

peiesniniiedl 3

CLEAN WATER ACT, § 404(b)(1), 33

FO SELES a ee ane en DT 5,9

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT, 16

ee I i sccaciclieinesiiieaamiiecentnlnedlnatl 5,9

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 16 U.S.C. §§

I I asec ta riinenientalatcnieeenineenitiniapainiiinimaeeall 5

MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT,

Be se Ss II enttincccccescesnnnencnsuscosevedoes 5,9

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

(“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq. ................. 5,9

PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 4611

EEE mete r= 3

Other

7 HANDBOOK OF NORTH AMERICAN

INDIANS, NORTHWEST COAST

(Smithsonian Inst. 1990) ........ nseeiinieicemaibbiiaindidaiitiny 2

44 Fed. Reg. 48379 (August 12, 1979)................0...... 3

H.Rep. No. 95-1045, Part I (April 7, 1978)............... 10

Rules

SUPREME COURT RULE 12(6)................-s0sesccsssssceeeceveees 1

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF GOLDBELT’S

REQUEST FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF

Respondent Goldbelt, Inc. respectfully submits

this brief in support of its request for affirmative re-

lief in the event the Court reverses the judgment of

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit as to petitioners Coeur Alaska, Inc. (“Coeur”),

and the State of Alaska.! Goldbelt adopts the briefs

on the merits filed by Coeur and the State of Alaska,

as supplemented by the following matters specific to

the relief requested by Goldbelt.

Goldbelt is the permittee under United States

Army Corps of Engineers Permit POA-1997-245-N,

issued pursuant to Section 404 of the CLEAN WATER

AcT, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, to construct a marine termi-

nal at Cascade Point, north of Juneau, Alaska, for

the single purpose of providing mine worker shuttle

services to Coeur’s Kensington Gold Mine. Respon-

dents the Sierra Club, Southeast Alaska Conserva-

tion Council (““SEACC”), and Lynn Canal Conserva-

tion challenged Goldbelt’s permit in the same pro-

ceeding that is the subject of the Petitions filed by

Coeur and the State of Alaska. The Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals vacated Goldbelt’s permit for the

sole reason that the permit’s stated purpose suppos-

edly failed as a result of the Court’s ruling vacating

Coeur’s Section 404 permit for disposal of tailings

from the Kensington Gold Mine into Lower Slate

Lake. J.A. 519a n.2 & 549a—50a.

1 Goldbelt files this brief and request for affirmative relief pur-

suant to Supreme Court Rule 12(6).

Accordingly, if this Court grants the relief re-

quested by either Coeur or the State of Alaska on the

merits, it should also reverse the Ninth Circuit’s de-

cision vacating Goldbelt’s Section 404 permit and

supporting Record of Decision.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Goldbelt incorporates the Statements of the Case

in the briefs filed by Coeur and the State of Alaska,

and in addition represents the following:

1. Goldbelt is an Alaska Native urban corpora-

tion created pursuant to Section 14(h)(8) of the

ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT AcT (“ANCSA”),

43 U.S.C. § 1613(h)(8), to receive and administer

lands and benefits from the United States in return

for extinguishment of the aboriginal title of the

Tlingit Indians residing in the vicinity of Juneau,

Alaska. Goldbelt is wholly owned by Tlingit Indians,

who are the current owners and descendants of the

aboriginal occupants of the land on which the pro-

posed and partially constructed Cascade Point ma-

rine terminal is located.

2. The Tlingit have lived in southeast Alaska

from time immemorial. Berners Bay, where both the

Kensington Gold Mine and Cascade Point are lo-

cated, lies in the heart of Auke Tlingit aboriginal ter-

ritory. J.A. 332a. See also 7 HANDBOOK OF NORTH

AMERICAN INDIANS, NORTHWEST COAST, at 204

(Smithsonian Inst. 1990).

3. When Congress enacted the landmark ANCSA

in 1971, it granted Goldbelt, on behalf of its more

than 3,000 Tlingit Indian shareholders, the right to

select 23,040 acres of land as partial compensation

for the lands illegally taken by non-Native interlop-

ers and the United States Government in flagrant

disregard of the Tlingit’s aboriginal rights. J.A.

333a—34a.

4. When the Secretary of the Interior withdrew

lands on Admiralty Island for Native selections pur-

suant to ANCSA, the Sierra Club and others sued to

block Goldbelt’s selections there.2 Unlike several

other Native Corporations that successfully main-

tained their right to develop their Admiralty Island

lands, Goldbelt attempted to accommodate the envi-

ronmental community by agreeing in 1979 to ex-

change its Admiralty Island selection rights for other

lands thought to be less environmentally sensitive.3

These lands included Cascade Point on the southern

shore of Berners Bay. The exchange was ratified in

Section 506(b) of the ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST

2 Admiralty Island was originally designated it as a national

monument in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter, in part to pro-

tect the archeological evidence of more than 10,000 years of

continuous Tlingit occupancy. PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION

4611 (December 1, 1978). Congress confirmed the creation of

the monument in Section 503(b) of the ALASKA NATIONAL INTER-

EST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT (*“ANILCA”), Pub.L. 96-487, 94

Stat. 2399 (December 2, 1980).

3 See 44 Fed. Reg. 48379 (August 12, 1979) (purpose of ex-

change to avoid continued litigation and further delays in land

conveyances.) The exchange was intended to, and did, result in

mooting the Sierra Club’s challenge to Goldbelt’s Admiralty Is-

land selections. Although the Sierra Club was not a party to

the exchange agreement, it was a direct and intended benefici-

ary. No objection by the Sierra Club, or anyone else, to substi-

tuting Cascade Point for Admiralty Island, appears in the Con-

gressional record relating to the exchange.

LANDS CONSERVATION ACT (“ANILCA”), Pub. L. 96-

487, 94 Stat. 2371, 2409 (December 2, 1980).

5. Cascade Point is on the Juneau road system

and potentially very valuable. J.A. 334a. The City

and Borough of Juneau has designated the lands

around Cascade Point as a “new growth area.” Gold-

belt has expended a great deal of time and effort in

responsible land use planning for the area. Id.

Every single attempt by Goldbelt to put these lands

to productive use, however, has been challenged and

frustrated by the very same environmental organiza-

tions that sued to force Goldbelt off Admiralty Is-

land. Jd. 335a. Among other actions, the environ-

mental organizations who appear as respondents in

this proceeding (1) successfully opposed Goldbelt’s

efforts to permit a general purpose dock at Cascade

Point in 1998, (2) opposed and appealed (unsuccess-

fully) Goldbelt’s right to obtain surface access to its

lands in 1999, and (3) successfully lobbied local, state

and federal agencies to limit Goldbelt’s use of a dock

at Cascade Point to mine shuttle operations only. Id.

As a result of the inequitable actions of the Sierra

Club, SEACC and Lynn Canal Conservation, the in-

tent of Congress has been frustrated, and Goldbelt’s

lands on Berners Bay have lain unproductive for the

past quarter century.

6. When Coeur announced its intent to reopen

the historic Kensington Gold Mine on the north

shore of Berners Bay — which is accessible only by air

or water — Goldbelt saw a perfect opportunity to de-

velop its lands at Cascade Point on the south shore of

the Bay as a marine terminal to provide mine worker

shuttle services to the Mine.

7. Goldbelt’s proposal was treated as a compo-

nent of the overall Kensington Plan of Operations,

and was subjected to years of exhaustive environ-

mental studies by federal, state and local agencies.

These studies included (1) an Environmental Impact

Statement prepared pursuant to the NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POo.Licy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§

4321, et seq., by the United States Forest Service,

United States Army Corps of Engineers (“the

Corps”), United States Environmental Protection

Agency, and the State of Alaska, (2) a Biological

Opinion prepared by the National Marine Fisheries

Service pursuant to the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT,

16 U.S.C. $§ 1531, et seq., (3) an Essential Fisheries

Habitat study pursuant to the MAGNUSON-STEVENS

FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT, 16

U.S.C. §§ 1801, et seg., (4) environmental and public

interest reviews by the Corps pursuant to Section

404(b)(1) of the CLEAN WATER AcT, 33 U.S.C. §

1344(b)(1), and (5) Coastal Zone Consistency review

by the State of Alaska pursuant to the COASTAL ZONE

MANAGEMENT ACT, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seg. In each

instance, Goldbelt’s marine terminal proposal was

found to satisfy all regulatory requirements for per-

mit issuance. Not one of the favorable environ-

mental findings reached in these numerous studies

and reports has been challenged by the Sierra Club,

SEACC, or Lynn Canal Conservation.

8. The Corps specifically concluded that Gold-

belt’s marine terminal proposal was the least envi-

ronmentally damaging, practicable alternative for

transporting workers to the Kensington Gold Mine

site. J.A. 356a. When the Corps issued its Section

404 permit for a marine terminal limited to mine

shuttle operations, however, the Sierra Club, SEACC

and Lynn Canal Conservation filed suit alleging that

Goldbelt’s permit was inextricably linked by purpose

to Coeur’s Section 404 permit for tailings disposal in

Lower Slate Lake, and therefore could not survive a

successful companion challenge to Coeur’s permit.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. The challenge to Goldbelt’s permit, and the

only reason given by the Ninth Circuit Court of Ap-

peals for vacating that permit and its supporting Re-

cord of Decision, is the unsupported and arbitrary

and capricious assumption that the Cascade Point

marine termina! cannot fulfill its intended purpose of

transporting workers to the Kensington Gold Mine

site if Coeur is denied the right to dispose of mine

tailings in Lower Slate Lake. If this Court reverses —

as it should — the Ninth Circuit’s decision vacating

Coeur’s permit for the tailings disposal, no basis for

vacating Goldbelt’s permit remains and the decision

vacating Goldbelt’s permit must be reversed as well.

2. Important considerations of public policy and

justice also support granting relief to Goldbelt. Bul-

lied out of their original land selections on Admiralty

Island by the Sierra Club, all the Tlingit Indians

have to show for a quarter century of expensive

planning efforts and attempts to accommodate envi-

ronmental objections is a partially completed, expen-

sive and unusable breakwater. Granting the relief

requested by Goldbelt will at long last enable the

Tlingit Indians to realize the benefits Congress in-

tended when it conveyed the Cascade Point lands to

Goldbelt in lieu of its Admiralty Island selection

rights.

lated

ARGUMENT

I. IF THE COURT GRANTS THE RELIEF

REQUESTED WITH RESPECT TO COEUR’S

404 PERMIT, SIMILAR RELIEF MUST BE

GRANTED TO GOLDBELT WITH RESPECT

TO ITS CASCADE POINT PERMIT

The Ninth Circuit’s decision vacating Goldbelt’s

404 permit and the agency’s supporting Record of

Decision (“ROD”) is based on nothing more than its

unsupported assumption that the purpose of provid-

ing shuttle service to the Kensington Gold Mine site

cannot be accomplished if the Coeur 404 permit for

tailings disposal in Lower Slate Lake is vacated.

Thus, if this Court reverses the Ninth Circuit deci-

sion and restores Coeur’s 404 permit and related au-

thorizations for tailings disposal, no basis remains

under the Ninth Circuit decision to vacate Goldbelt’s

permit, and as a matter of law the Ninth Circuit rul-

ing regarding Goldbelt’s permit must also be re-

versed. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 5 U.S.C.

§ 706(2); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v.

Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971).

The Ninth Circuit decision vacating the Goldbelt

404 permit and supporting ROD is arbitrary and ca-

pricious: it presumes without foundation that the

mine shuttle service purpose of the Goldbelt permit

depends entirely on the Cocur 404 permit and cannot

be accomplished if Coeur is required to modify its

method of tailings disposal. See J.A. 519a n.2 &

549a-—50a. This assumption is demonstrably incor-

rect. Goldbelt’s permit is not tied to any particular

method of tailings disposal. See C.A. E.R. 550-54 &

573. The Ninth Circuit had no basis in the record

before it to conclude that the Kensington Gold Mine,

in which Coeur has invested hundreds of millions of

dollars over the past decades, and which is poised to

begin production pending only completion of a tail-

ings disposal facility, would be abandoned if Coeur

were required to find an alternative means of tail-

ings disposal.4 Any delay caused by the Ninth Cir-

cuit’s decision with respect to the Lower Slate Lake

method of tailings disposal might affect the timing of

operations from Cascade Point, but did not provide a

rationale for vacating the permit — let alone the ROD

that took years of conscientious effort and expense to

compile.®

The Corps of Engineers’ action in granting a

permit to Goldbelt for construction of a dock at Cas-

4 The Ninth Circuit’s apparent assumption that its decision

would result in abandonment of the Kensington Gold Mine and

obviate the need for a marine terminal to transport mine work-

ers is nonsensical. Although Coeur, the State of Alaska and the

Corps agree that placement in Lower Slate Lake is the least

environmentally harmful, practicable alternative for disposing

of mine tailings, Coeur has been forced by the Ninth Circuit's

erroneous ruling to file a contingent application for a permit

employing a more expensive, less environmentally-friendly dry

stack “paste” (surface) method of tailings disposal. That appli-

cation was filed without prejudice to this appeal.

° The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the “normal remedy” for

unlawful agency action is to vacate the action and remand to

the agency to act in compliance with its statutory obligations.

J.A. 550. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985).

Instead, the Ninth Circuit vacated not only Goldbelt’s permit,

but the ROD on which it was based — a ROD that the appellants

had not challenged and the Court apparently did not even con-

sider — thus sending Goldbelt back to square one.

cade Point cannot be vacated unless, after a “search-

ing and careful” review of the ROD, the reviewing

Court is left with the conclusion that there is no ra-

tional basis for issuance of the permit. Citizens to

Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, supra, 401 U.S.

at 416.

Here, the Sierra Club, SEACC, and Lynn Canal

Conservation did not challenge the adequacy or the

findings supporting any of the documents that exam-

ined exhaustively the environmental impacts of con-

structing and operating the Cascade Point marine

terminal — the Environmental Impact Statement

prepared pursuant to NEPA, the Essential Fish

Habitat report prepared pursuant to the MAGNUSON-

STEVENS Act, the Biological Opinion prepared pur-

suant to the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, the State of

Alaska’s Certification pursuant to the CLEAN WATER

AcT and its Consistency Determination pursuant to

the COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT, and the Corps

of Engineers’ Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation and Public

Interest Review pursuant to the CLEAN WATER ACT.

Nor does it appear that the Ninth Circuit even con-

sidered, let alone searchingly and carefully reviewed,

this extensive record in reaching its decision with re-

spect to Goldbelt.

Il. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS OF

PUBLIC POLICY AND JUSTICE ALSO

SUPPORT GRANTING RELIEF TO

GOLDBELT

In addition to the reasons given by Coeur and the

State of Alaska, this Court should reverse the deci-

sion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding

Goldbelt’s 404 permit because the decision deprives

Goldbelt and its Tlingit Indian shareholders of the

economic benefits intended by Congress when it en-

acted ANCSA and conveyed the Cascade Point lands

to Goldbelt. That decision has dealt a devastating

blow to economically disadvantaged Tlingit Indians

throughout northern southeast Alaska.

Congress intended that Goldbelt would be able to

use Cascade Point for economic development and

betterment of Goldbelt’s shareholders.® Koniag, Inc.

v. Koncor Forest Res., 39 F.3d 991, 996—97 (9th Cir.

1984) (Congress expected and intended that Alaska

Native Corporations would select their Settlement

Act lands for economic development purposes); City

of Angoon v. Marsh, 749 F.2d 1413, 1488 (9th Cir.

1984) (permitting Native Corporation to log ANCSA

lands within Admiralty Island National Monument)

(“it is inconceivable that Congress would have extin-

guished their aboriginal claims and insured their

economic well being by forbidding the only real eco-

nomic use of the lands conveyed”).

Congress emphasized its intent to facilitate

Goldbelt’s acquisition and use of its Berners Bay

lands by exempting the off-Admiralty exchange from

review under NEPA. ANILCA Section 506(b), 94

Stat. 2409. Yet, more than a quarter century later,

the never-ending administrative and court chal-

lenges filed by the Sierra Club, SEACC and the Lynn

Canal Conservation Society have deprived Goldbelt

6 Congress was well aware that Goldbelt was willing to ex-

change its selections on Admiralty Island only if its economic

interests would be furthered. H.Rep. No. 95-1045, Part I (April

7, 1978).

of virtually any productive use of its lands at Cas-

cade Point.

It would be difficult to overstate the importance

of the Kensington Gold Mine and Cascade Point ma-

rine terminal to the Tlingit Indians of the Juneau

area — Goldbelt’s shareholders. The Ninth Circuit’s

decision to vacate the Coeur and Goldbelt permits

has done far more than unfairly dash Goldbelt’s most

recent attempt to use its Settlement lands. It has

struck a crippling blow to the economic aspirations of

a generation of Tlingit Indians living in northern

southeast Alaska.

Southeast Alaska has been hard hit by the de-

cline of the timber and fishing industries. J.A. 505a.

In the Juneau area, the economic downturn has been

compounded by a contraction of employment oppor-

tunities in the public sector. See C.A. Br. of the City

and Borough of Juneau, as Amicus Curiae in Support

of Defendants-Appellees 12. Economists estimate

that the lack of decent paying jobs is resulting in a

net out-migration of as much as 4500 persons a year

from Southeast Alaska, especially in the 25- to 35-

‘year-old range. See C.A. Amicus Curiae Br. of

Southeast Conf. in Support of Defendants-Appellees

6 (the Southeast Conference represents the interests

of thirty Southeast Alaska member communities,

nine Alaska Native corporations, and numerous

other private and public entities in the region).

The economic hard times have crippled the rural,

largely Native, areas of Southeast Alaska where em-

ployment opportunities are virtually non-existent.

See C.A. Br. of Amicus Curiae Berners Bay Consor-

tium in Support of Appellees 4 (the Consortium is a

coalition of Native Corporations and Coeur Alaska,

Inc.). Although many of Goldbelt’s shareholders re-

side in the Juneau area, their unemployment rates

are two to three times higher than the rates for non-

Natives. Much of the employment that is available

to them is seasonal, low paying and without benefits.

J.A. 506a.

From the outset, Coeur has recognized that the

Kensington Gold Mine lies at the heart of Tlingit

traditional territory and has taken truly extraordi-

nary measures to insure that Native Alaskans are

included in the prosperity that the mine promises.

These efforts not only have been exemplary, they are

unprecedented. As one Tlingit leader put it:

No other company .. . has ever worked

so conscientiously as Coeur to involve

the Natives of Northern Southeast

Alaska in the planning of its activities,

or been so diligent in its efforts to en-

sure that Alaska Natives are included

in the economic benefits to be derived

from its operations.

J.A. 505a.

Before the Ninth Circuit effectively shut down

the Kensington Gold Mine, Coeur had been training

Alaska Natives for high-paying, full-time jobs in the

mining industry. Roughly 25 percent of the con-

struction workforce at the Kensington Gold Mine

was Alaska Native. Coeur had promised partner-

ships with Native Corporations, including Goldbelt,

to provide goods and services — such as the mine

shuttle service Goldbelt plans to operate from its

Cascade Point terminal. J.A. 503a—05a.

The optimism generated by Coeur’s Native-

friendly operations has been dashed by the Ninth

Circuit’s rulings. This Court should reverse — not

only to correct an erroneous reading of the Clean

Water Act — but to fulfill the quarter-century-old

promise of Congress that the lands it intended for

the economic benefit of the Tlingit Indians not be

locked up in perpetuity by endless, inequitable litiga-

tion by the Sierra Club, SEACC and Lynn Canal

Conservation aimed at relegating those lands to de

facto wilderness status.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, and for the reasons set out in

the briefs on the merits of Coeur and the State of

Alaska, the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals should be reversed as to the federal defen-

dants, Coeur and also Goldbelt.

Respectfully submitted.