With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". use of a particular area of municipal land). 69 . See Pullen v. Ulmer, 923 P.2d 54, 64 (Alaska 1996) (invalidating initiative establishing preferences for subsistence, personal, and recreational users in salmon fishery). 70 . See Staudenmaier v. Municipality of Anchor age, 139 P.3d 1259, 1260-63 (Alaska 2006) (upholding municipality's rejection of initiative requiring the municipality to sell specified public utility assets). 71 . See Alliance of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 273 P.3d 1128, 1137-38 (Alaska 2012) (invalidating initiative requiring voter approval for all Borough capital expenditures in excess of one million dollars). 72 . Pebble Ltd. P'ship ex rel. Pebble Mines Corp. v. Parnell, 215 P.3d 1064, 1077 (Alaska 2009). 73 . See Pullen, 923 P.2d at 64 (<HOLDING>); McAlpine v. Univ. of Alaska, 762 P.2d 81, 91

A: holding that initiative setting user preferences in salmon fishery was an appropriation because it would limit the board of fisheries discretion to make allocation decisions in times of shortage and there is a very realistic danger that such shortages will occur
B: holding that traditional allocation of burden of proof to the party challenging the decisions applies to decisions under the tca
C: holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions
D: recognizing authority of board to make allocation decisions as repeated issue ease of evading review by annual amendments and public importance of impact upon allocation of alaskas fishery resources
A.