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
Yes JT, you have learned that well. As has your buddy Lee. Not a single shred of hard evidence of any downside of drilling in his long winded diatribe.
I know, Lee, but if we both have him on ignore how will we ever know [hehehehehehe] if he says anything worth paying attention to.
Don't have to worry about that. It appears that there are others out there who are watching and responding. I'll leave it up to them to decide whose posts are credible and whose are not.
Besides, there are more than just one who don't care about ordinary folks like you and me. Does 47% ring a bell?
Now, back to Alaska and oil. Are you one of the Alaskans who gets a check every year from oil royalties up there? Talk about buying votes, that has to be one of the best schemes I've ever heard of. The more Alaskans support drilling, the larger their checks will be. Is that how it works?
Here's a link to an article in tonight's Deseret News out of Salt Lake. Seems some folks in Wyoming are concerned about fracking.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765667161/Deal-requires-Wyoming-frack...
The downside of drilling:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/23/us/north-dakota-oil-boom-d...
Probably worth noting that there would likely be a lot less discussion on this wilderness proposal if there were no oil and gas under this part of Alaska.
As to "providing evidence" about whether or not the statements by at least some energy companies is completely truthful, I'd simply suggest you read the articles cited above, such as this one, and then decide for yourself if the information presented matches up with the industry spokesman's response: "Our members remain committed to the development of natural gas in a safe and responsible manner."
I thought it was amusing in a rather sad way that one of the above reports notes that, like ec, "the industry has been largely dismissive of the research already released," A parallel was drawn to the tobacco industry, which for years simply scoffed at studies linking their products to lung cancer. It's a proven tactic used for time immemorial: deny, disparage and dismiss anything that casts you in a bad light.
The most effective strategy by the industy has been to simply keep a lid on regulation and environmental oversight by state agencies. Texas is a prime example, where "regulation" is a joke, as noted in this report. Another example that money talks, and the oil and gas industry has plenty of it to spread around.
Do you suppose oil dollars might have a similar influence on decision-making in Alaska and on its elected officials? Surely not.
dakohta - from 2000-2009 there were 161 deaths from oil and gas drilling accidents.
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/oil-and-gas-accidents.html#...
Over that time there were more than 400,000 automobile deaths. There are 126,000 accidental deaths each year, 33,000 from posioning, 26,000 from falling.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
Are those numbers the "downside" of driving, walking, cleaning? Perhaps we should be doing more drilling and less walking. Heck, there are twice as many ski/snowboarding deaths each year as there has been drilling deaths. Lets ban skiing and snowboarding.
If that is the best you can come up with a downside then drill baby drill.
Of course there would be alot less. There wouldn't be an issue. No one is against Wilderness per se. It only becomes an issue when it conflicts with other uses. Locking up valuable energy resources is an issue.