The White House announced Sunday that President Obama would seek wilderness designation for much of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska/White House
President Obama, in a move certain to generate controversy, is pushing for the country's largest Wilderness designation to be bestowed on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Additionally, the Democrat wants four rivers -- the Atigun, Hulahula, Kongakut, and Marsh Fork Canning -- to be added to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Only Congress can designate Wilderness areas, and with the Republican Party in control of both the House and the Senate, and past interest from the energy sector for drilling in the wildlife refuge, the president's proposal likely could go nowhere.
Interior Department officials said Sunday that the department is releasing a conservation plan for the refuge that for the first time recommends additional protections, and that President Obama will make an official recommendation to Congress to designate core areas of the refuge ' including its Coastal Plain ' as wilderness, the highest level of protection available to public lands. If Congress chooses to act, it would be the largest ever wilderness designation since Congress passed the visionary Wilderness Act over 50 years ago.
'Designating vast areas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as Wilderness reflects the significance this landscape holds for America and its wildlife,' said Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. 'Just like Yosemite or the Grand Canyon, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of our nation's crown jewels and we have an obligation to preserve this spectacular place for generations to come.'
The president's decision builds upon years of public engagement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to revise the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as required by law. The plan will guide the Fish and Wildlife Service's management decisions for the next 15 years.
An Interior release said that, "(B)ased on the best available science and extensive public comment, the Service's preferred alternative recommends 12.28 million acres ' including the Coastal Plain ' for designation as wilderness. The Service also recommends four rivers ' the Atigun, Hulahula, Kongakut, and Marsh Fork Canning ' for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System."
Currently, more than 7 million acres of the refuge are managed as Wilderness, consistent with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. However, more than 60 percent of the refuge ' including the Coastal Plain ' does not carry that designation.
Designation as wilderness would protect and preserve the refuge, ensuring the land and water would remain unimpaired for use and enjoyment by future generations. Only Congress has the authority to designate Wilderness areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Recommendations for Wilderness or Wild and Scenic River designations require approval of the Service Director, Secretary of the Interior, and the President. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Sunday released the revised comprehensive conservation plan and final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. While the Service is not soliciting further public comment on the revised plan/EIS, it will be available to the public for review for 30 days, after which, the record of decision will be published. At that point, the President will make the formal wilderness recommendation to Congress.
'The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge preserves a unique diversity of wildlife and habitat in a corner of America that is still wild and free,' said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe. 'But it faces growing challenges that require a thoughtful and comprehensive management strategy. The incorporation of large portions of the refuge into the National Wilderness Preservation System will ensure we protect this outstanding landscape and its inhabitants for our children and generations that follow.'
The revised plan/EIS addresses a variety of issues, including the protection of wildlife populations and their habitats, opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation, subsistence needs of local inhabitants, and other public uses. The plan also strengthens wildlife and habitat monitoring, as well as the monitoring of public use of the refuge so as to better respond to changing conditions on the landscape, particularly those associated with climate change.
The 19.8-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is home to the most diverse wildlife in the arctic, including caribou, polar bears, gray wolves, and muskoxen. More than 200 species of birds, 37 land mammal species, eight marine mammal species and 42 species of fish call the vast refuge home. Lagoons, beaches, saltmarshes, tundra and forests make up the remote and undisturbed wild area that spans five distinct ecological regions.
The refuge holds special meaning to Alaska Natives, having sustained their lives and culture for thousands of years. The Gwich'in people refer to the Coastal Plain of the refuge as 'The Sacred Place Where Life Begins,' reflecting the area's importance to their community, maintaining healthy herds of caribou and an abundance of other wildlife.
Comments
And who is endorsing eminent domain? Certainly not me. Another false strawman. Buy the land and frack and "mountain topped" all you want. Of course to no avail because that has already been explored. But then, you haven't identified any of the eastern lands that have lost there tops or explained why we are worse off for it.
Actually, Breckenridge was heavily mined in the late 19th century. The mining remnants that now lie in Forest Service and proposed Wilderness land are now reverred artifacts by the local "progressives".
Because Obama had nothing to do with the low prices. The prices are low totally due to private investment and initiative and have been accomplished dispite Obama's efforts to restrict development on public land. You need to learn the difference between correlation and causation.
I must agree J Thomas and Roger, hope it comes pass.
Me too, with the caveat that minimally invasive resource extraction be kept. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Unfortunately, Wilderness designation is.
Didn't take long to play out as expected. From Fox News yesterday:
Nice post, m13cli. It would be great if ANWR receives these designations.
It's always entertaining to ponder the creative terms used by either side of various issues – in this case " minimally invasive resource extraction." Maybe that one was crafted by the same PR firm that came up with another oxymoron: "Clean coal."
Can oil and gas development use techniques that reduce impacts of drilling and production, as compared to totally unregulated ones from a century ago? Yes, but anyone who has spent much time around oil and gas operations can only laugh (or cringe) at the term "minimally invasive."
For the record, I worked for 6 years at Big Thicket National Preserve, one of those NPS areas where the enabling legislation allows oil and gas activity. Based on my experience, the staff there does its best, and companies cooperate to varying degrees, in trying to reduce impacts of that activity. Even under the best of circumstances, drilling and pumping oil and gas is simply a dirty, noisy and smelly activity that has big impacts on resources and the visitor experience, and those impacts extend far beyond the margins of the well pad.
I've not been to the North Slope, but have spent some time in other parts of Alaska near the Arctic Circle, and on those wide open spaces, the sights, sounds and smells of "resource extraction" will certainly be absolutely invasive.
Certainly an issue that all who receive the restorative effects of these great places hold dear but should there not be consideration for everything else that's going on with this administration? Paying off individual constituencies to get a pass on much that's going on behind the scenes and not spoken of seems pretty dangerous. Would certainly like a change where these politicians and regular folks aren't always looking to demonize someone or some organization in most cases just to win their case hiding behind all the warm and fuzzy optics.