Sturgeon v. Frost, 3:11-cv-00183

Background

Plaintiff John Sturgeon and intervenor State of Alaska brought as-applied APA challenges to NPS regulations (principally 36 C.F.R. § 1.2(a) and related Part 2 provisions) as applied to use of hovercraft and helicopter access on navigable reaches of the Nation River (within Yukon-Charley) and Alagnak River (within Katmai).
Sturgeon alleges NPS threatened criminal enforcement when he used a hovercraft on the Nation River; the State sought helicopter access for scientific work on the Alagnak and petitioned to amend/repeal § 1.2(a)(3).
Central statutory framework: ANILCA (esp. § 103(c) and definitions of “public lands” / “conservation system unit”), the Submerged Lands Act (State title to beds of navigable waters), and the Secretary’s regulatory authority implementing NPS administration (36 C.F.R. §§ 1.2, 2.17, Part 13).
Dispute framed around whether § 103(c) of ANILCA bars application of general NPS regulations to state-owned submerged lands and navigable waters inside ANILCA-created/expanded units.
District court reviewed the administrative record under Chevron; limited the case to Nation River (Sturgeon) and Alagnak River (State) claims and addressed whether § 1.2(a) and §§ 2.17(a)(3), 2.17(e) apply.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NPS may apply 36 C.F.R. § 1.2(a) (and related Part 2 rules forbidding hovercraft/helicopter uses) to activities on state-owned submerged lands/navigable waters inside ANILCA units	§ 103(c) forbids applying NPS regulations to lands conveyed to the State; river beds and state rights therefore are excluded from regulation	§ 1.2(a) applies to all persons within NPS boundaries regardless of submerged-land ownership; Part 2 rules are general NPS regulations, not rules "applicable solely to public lands" under § 103(c)	The court held § 1.2(a) and the cited Part 2 regulations properly apply to Sturgeon and the State; § 103(c) does not bar application because §§ 2.17/1.2 are general NPS rules, not regulations "applicable solely to public lands"
Whether submerged lands/water rights status converts the rivers into ANILCA "public lands" thereby excluding application of NPS regs	State: beds are owned under Submerged Lands Act so are not "public lands" and § 103(c) protects them from NPS-only public-lands regulations	Defendants: reserved federal navigation or water interests could create correlative federal rights; regardless, § 1.2 applies by its terms to waters within unit boundaries	Court found riverbeds are State-owned (not ANILCA public lands) but that fact does not prevent § 1.2(a) from applying; issue of reserved federal water rights not dispositive here
Whether Part 13 (Alaska-specific) alters general rules so that NPS may not enforce hovercraft/helicopter prohibitions on State waters	Plaintiffs argued Part 13/ANILCA should limit application of Part 2 rules to State waters inside ANILCA units	Defendants: Part 13 supplements general regs but did not amend or displace Part 2 helicopter/hovercraft prohibitions; Part 2 governs across NPS generally	Court concluded Part 13 did not modify §§ 2.17; Part 2 prohibitions remain applicable
Whether denial of State's rulemaking petition was arbitrary and capricious	State argued denial was arbitrary if regulations are invalid as applied	Defendants argued petition denial was reasonable because regulations validly apply	Because court ruled regulations were properly applied, denial of the rulemaking petition was not arbitrary or capricious

Key Cases Cited

Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. State of Ill., 146 U.S. 387 (discusses State title to beds of navigable waters and public trust principles)
United States v. 32.42 Acres of Land in San Diego County, 683 F.3d 1030 (federal navigation authority discussed as distinct from land interests)
Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698 (treats the United States’ reserved water rights and relevance to ANILCA public-land status)
John v. United States, 720 F.3d 1214 (discusses Katie John precedent controlling reserved water-right issues under ANILCA)