You are here

President Obama Proposing Wilderness, Wild And Scenic River Designations For Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Share
Alternate Text
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.

'œDesignating 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. 'œJust 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.

'œThe 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. 'œBut 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 'œThe 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

Excellent!  Hope he can do it.


The primary opposition is likely to come from the Republican side of the aisle, plus many in Alaska, based upon the supposed need for the oil under the Refuge. Given the current successful effort by the Saudis to make it unprofitable by U. S. companies to drill for "new oil' or pump any oil via existing wells, there's probably not a better time than the present to give this idea a try. My prediction: those same groups will oppose this on idealogical grounds, whether we need the oil from the Refuge in the foreseeable future or not.

At least Congress will have its chance to express its will. If that answer is "no," wonder if the backup plan would be to convert a national wildlife refuge to a national monument - via a Presidential Proclamation?


JT - it isn't the Saudi's that have willingly dropped the price of oil, its increased US production that has produced that decline.  And hundreds of millions of Americans - Republican and Democrat-  are enjoying it at the pump.


I certainly agree it's a supply and demand issue, and like other consumers, I like the current prices. That said, the pain is starting to be felt in the U. S. oil industry, with layoffs and cuts in production, and that will accelerate if prices stay low. It's the typical boom and bust cycle seen in U. S. oil business for decades.

As to the Saudi role in keeping their production up to drive prices down (and thereby cause U. S. production to decline), a quick Google search will find plenty of support for my contention that this glut is strongly influenced by a Saudi decision to continue to sell at a loss. Here's just one article from an industry newsletter.

So, as this relates to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and your comment, it's pretty apparent that domestic production is more than ample to drive prices down - without a drop of oil from the Refuge.


this glut is strongly influenced by a Saudi decision to continue to sell at a loss.

What is making them reach that decision?  High US production.

without a drop of oil from the Refuge.

Today that is true, will it be in the future?


Living in Alaska for 18 years and having traveled thousands of miles in the arctic I have often thought about and been asked about the issue of drilling in the arctic refuge. My view is the oil and/or gas is not going to go away. Let future generations decide which is more important, wilderness or burning the oil now. My generation is burning more than it's fair share and future generations will curse us for what we are doing today. If we insist on maintaning our standard of living using oil and gas we would be smart if we burned the rest of the worlds oil first and saved ours for our grandchildren. Not that that is particularly ethical. Young people in other countries hate us because they know we are burning their birthright by buying it from their crooked politicians. Not that there is another kind of politician which is a worldwide problem.


As to the current glut in oil on the market, it's not unreasonable for you to ask, "Today that is true, will it be in the future?"

That response is a bit ironic, however, since your consistent response has been to scoff anytime others bring up the idea on this site of trying to do anything to reduce our use of oil. One example of yours earlier today on another thread: "there is nothing wrong with or 'dependence on personal vehicle oil consumption.'

To keep this discussion reasonably on topic, let's sum up. At current world supplies and consumption, there's no need for tapping new oil resources in the Refuge - or anywhere else in the Arctic - so that should not be an issue in the proposed wilderness designation.

Might that change in the future? With today's lack of concern for future oil supplies, perhaps. If that were the case, and we were in desperate times and felt we had to have that oil under the Refuge, congress could always deauthorize the wilderness designation and allow drilling. 


Based on the description in the story of the area involved, it certainly seems to merit serious consideration for wilderness. Given the location, terrain and climate, one might hope there would be less opposition in this case from mountain bikers, horse groups and others user groups who tend to object to wilderness designations in the Lower 48.

 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.