Testimony submitted by The Wilderness Society
On behalf of: Alaska Conservation Foundation, Alaska Wilderness League,
Alaska Wildlife Alliance, Arctic Connections, Audubon Alaska, Alaskans FOR Wildlife,
Denali Citizens Council, Cook Inlet Keeper, Defenders of Wildlife,
Eyak Preservation Council, Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, Sierra Club,
National Wildlife Refuge Association, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Wilderness Watch
Senate Energy & Natural Resource Committee
Hearing to receive testimony on implementation of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980, including perspectives on the Act’s impacts in Alaska and
suggestions for improvements to the Act.
December 3, 2015
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act is a landmark law that benefits the
nation and Alaska by protecting lands and natural resources of national interest and
Alaska’s unique cultural and subsistence heritage. ANILCA is the result of nearly a
decade of debate after the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was passed. It
embodies significant and unique compromises on the part of many stakeholders during
a historic juncture in Alaska and the nation’s history. As the single largest landprotection bill in American history, ANILCA identified the lands and resources of greatest
national interest and forever shaped how conservation system units and wilderness
lands are managed in Alaska - a state with millions of acres that contain exceptional
scientific, scenic, cultural, wildlife, geological and historical values – and how customary
and traditional or subsistence uses and activities can continue on these units and other
Alaska federal lands.
Long before Alaska was a state, there was widespread recognition of the extraordinary
natural resource values present in Alaska. Early researchers and writers drew attention
to Alaska’s remarkable natural resources, and Alaska’s first protected areas were
established long before statehood in 1959, including the Tongass and Chugach National
Forests, Mt. McKinley National Park, among others.1 ANILCA ensured that these and
other national interest lands and their values would be protected for the benefit of all
Americans.
At statehood, Congress granted Alaska the right to select 105 million acres of
unreserved federal land to benefit the State. This is five times more acreage than any
1
The following protected areas were established prior to statehood: Tongass and
Chugach National Forests in 1907 and 1908 respectively; Mt. McKinley National Park in
1917; Katmai National Monument in 1918; Glacier Bay National Monument in 1925;
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and the Kenai National Moose Range (now the Kenai
National Wildlife Refuge) both in 1941.
1
other state in the Union had received. This land entitlement provided the State
enormous wealth and opportunity for economic development. Alaska chose lands that
included some of Alaska’s largest oil and gas reserves and other natural resource values.
Alaska has prospered economically as a result. In 1980, Alaska was able to abolish its
individual income tax and there is no state sales tax in Alaska. Residents have
benefitted from the lowest individual tax burden in the nation as well as from
entitlements established from an oil reserve fund – the Alaska Permanent Dividend
Fund.2 Since development of the large Prudhoe Bay oil find, the majority of the State’s
budget has been funded by oil and Alaska has prospered.
ANILCA was passed in 1980 with considerable support from many stakeholders. It set
aside 104 million acres for conservation and protection, created new or expanded
existing conservation system units, and clarified administrative direction for:







9 National Parks and Preserves
6 National Monuments
16 National Wildlife Refuges (Including the Arctic and Izembek National Wildlife
Refuges)
2 National Conservation Areas
2 National Forests (including the Tongass, our nation’s largest)
25 Wild and Scenic rivers
35 Wilderness areas (on park, refuge and forest lands)
These national public interest lands provide numerous social, ecological and economic
benefits to the nation and to Alaska and its communities, and protect Alaskan cultural
traditions. Some of the many benefits that Alaskans and other Americans have enjoyed
resulting from this unique law are highlighted below.
Subsistence and Traditional Activities:
A key to ANILCA’s success is its recognition of the unique needs of Alaskans, especially
the traditional, subsistence way of life that has sustained Alaska Native communities for
thousands of years. By recognizing that subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska are
“essential to Native physical, economic, traditional and cultural existence,” and by
protecting lands, waters and natural resources necessary for subsistence uses to occur,
and ensuring access for those uses, ANILCA underscored the strong connection between
local residents and the land and waters that sustain them, and recognized the
community benefits of that connection.
2
At the end of September 2015, the Alaska Permanent Fund balance was valued at
$50.5 billion. The state pays annual dividends to every Alaska resident, including
children. This year’s dividend was $2,072. Dividend disbursements since 1982 have
totaled over $21 billion.
2
ANILCA sets a priority for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on federal lands in Alaska,
ensures protection and access to these resources, and allows for the continuation of
customary and traditional uses by rural Alaskans. By protecting important natural
resources and preserving ancient cultures and traditional uses simultaneously, ANILCA
protects Alaska’s proud cultural heritage.
The compromises crafted in ANILCA that provided land protection, subsistence, and
customary and traditional uses continue to be supported by many stakeholders and are
unique in our nation’s system of laws. They should not be undermined.
Recommendation: Congress should ensure that the subsistence priority on federal
lands in Alaska continues and that the compromises crafted in ANILCA are honored and
upheld, not act to weaken them.
Economic benefits of National Parks:
In addition to natural resource and cultural benefits, Alaska’s National Parks have
contributed significantly to Alaska’s economy. For example, in 2014, 2.68 million park
visitors contributed $1.6 billion to the state's economy. This was the highest number
ever of visitors to Alaska parks and park visitation is expected to continue growing.
Alaska’s parks support approximately 17,000 jobs annually and a significant portion of
these positions are hired locally.
Denali National Park is one of the top three National Parks benefitting from visitor
expenditures. In 2014, park visitors spent $524.3 million in local gateway regions. Close
to 40% of National Park Service seasonal staff is hired from the local area.
Seward, Alaska provides an informative case study regarding the benefits of National
Parks to local economies. In 1975, the Seward City Council passed a resolution opposing
the proposed Kenai Fjords National Park. In 1980, ANILCA established Kenai Fjords
National Park. In 1985, the Seward City Council rescinded its resolution recognizing that
the trend of increasing number of visitors that had begun was directly attributable to
Kenai Fjords National Park. The Council also recognized that this increased visitation
greatly benefitted the community. A 2001 report by the Institute of Social and
Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage states that since Kenai Fjords
was created:
“the Seward economy has expanded and strengthened. … There is now
widespread agreement among the residents of Seward that creation of the Kenai
Fjords National Park has been good for the visitor industry, the economy, and for
the community. The standard of living is higher, there are more job
opportunities, local public revenues have grown, and the economy is more
diversified.”
Denali and Kenai Fjords National Parks are shining examples of how ANILCA has
3
benefitted Alaska’s economy overall and the local economy of two rural areas.
Recommendation: Maintain Alaska’s National Parks in their present state for the
benefit of Alaskans, Alaska’s rural communities, and the American public.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the largest national wildlife refuge, which was
expanded with the passage of ANILCA. The refuge is a vast, wilderness landscape of
tundra plains, boreal forests, dramatic mountain peaks, and coastal lagoons situated in
the nation’s wildest, most northern edge. At 19.3 million acres, it is approximately the
size of South Carolina and contains 8 million acres of wilderness that Congress
designated in ANILCA.
The Arctic Refuge has no roads, marked trails or campgrounds. Wilderness opportunities
abound, from wildlife watching to hiking, rafting and hunting. Its wild, unspoiled nature
is central to the refuge’s rugged appeal as one of the last truly pristine areas on Earth.
For thousands of years the area has been the homeland to Native Gwich’in and Inupiat
communities and has sustained them culturally. It has also provided a safe haven to
great snowy owls, polar bears, more than 45 species of mammals including wolves, Dall
sheep, grizzly bears, and over 160 species of birds. Continued protection of its
ecosystems will enable these species to adapt as the Arctic climate warms and will
benefit all Americans. The Arctic Refuge is the crown jewel of our nation’s National
Wildlife Refuge System and an important part of our nation’s heritage.
The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is widely recognized as the biological heart of the
19.3 million-acre refuge. It is also the subject of repeated efforts by oil industry
advocates to develop oil and gas. No part of ANILCA has been more hotly debated than
the provisions of Title X of ANILCA that pertain to the future of the approximately 1.5
million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Section 1002 of ANILCA had as its purpose to “provide for a comprehensive and
continuing inventory and assessment of the fish and wildlife resources of the coastal
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the impacts of oil and gas
exploration, development, and production, and to authorize exploratory activity within
the coastal plain in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on the fish and
wildlife and other resources.” Section 1002 also identifies wildlife species that the
continuing study must consider and provides guidelines and limits under which oil and
gas exploration were to take place.
Section 1003 states that, “[p]roduction of oil and gas from the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development leading to production of oil
and gas from the range shall be undertaken until authorized by an Act of Congress.” In
the decades since passage of ANILCA and despite repeated attempts, Congress has not
yet authorized such development.
4
In July of this year, the U.S. District Court of Alaska affirmed that the coastal plain of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is off limits to oil and gas exploration, when rejecting the
State of Alaska’s effort to conduct seismic exploration in the coastal plain of the Arctic
Refuge. The state’s drilling proposal had been repeatedly rejected by the U.S.
Department of the Interior. The State had asked the federal court to overturn the
Department’s decision.
The Obama administration’s recent wilderness recommendation for 12.28 million acres
of the Arctic Refuge underscores the values of the Refuge, the critical role it will
continue to play for sustaining Native cultures, the important benefits the Refuge
provides to all Americans and its valuable role for wildlife species adaptation in our
changing Arctic climate. This wilderness recommendation was transmitted to Congress,
emphasizing the need for legislative action. The unparalleled intrinsic values of the
Arctic Refuge far outweigh any short-term gains from oil and gas development within its
boundary.
Recommendation: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be permanently protected
for ecological, subsistence, cultural, wilderness, and climate adaptation reasons.
Congress should enact legislation to designate as wilderness the lands recommended for
wilderness by the Obama administration.
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge:
The 315,000 acre Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is the smallest of Alaska's national
wildlife refuges, but its values are of global proportions. With the passage of ANILCA in
1980, most of the refuge was designated as Wilderness to protect a wide variety of fish
and wildlife species, including wolves, caribou, moose, grizzly bears, five species of
salmon, and hundreds of thousands of migratory birds. In 1986, Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge was identified under the Ramsar Convention as the first wetlands area in
North America to be placed on the List of Wetlands of International Importance.
The Izembek Lagoon complex is the heart of the Refuge that includes Izembek and
Kinzarof lagoons and the narrow isthmus that separates the two lagoons. The 150square-mile Izembek lagoon contains one of the world's largest beds of eelgrass,
creating a rich feeding and resting area for hundreds of thousands of waterfowl and
other marine and terrestrial species. Virtually the entire world populations of Pacific
black brant, Taverner's Canada geese and emperor geese depend on the eel grass in the
lagoon during their annual migrations. The value and resources provided by Izembek’s
protected wildlife habitat reach far beyond the Refuge boundaries, ensuring that many
communities across Western and Arctic Alaska continue to harvest migratory waterfowl
species that are important to their subsistence way of life.
Recommendation: Congress should take no action to physically alter Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge, but maintain in perpetuity all of Izembek and its congressionally
5
designated wilderness lands for their globally significant values. A de-designation of
wilderness lands within the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge for the purposes of
building a road would be an attack on the National Wilderness Preservation System. It
would also threaten the very purposes identified in ANILCA for Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge that its designated wilderness also aims to protect.
Fish and Wildlife Management:
ANILCA preserved natural landscapes, wildlife habitat, and populations that depend on
unaltered landscapes. It allowed for the continuation of customary and traditional and
subsistence uses on federal lands and provided direction for National Parks, National
Wildlife Refuges and other federal conservation system units. With the passage of
ANILCA, Congress intended to “preserve unrivaled scenic and geological values
associated with natural landscapes; to provide for the maintenance of sound
populations of, and habitat for, wildlife species of inestimable value to the citizens of
Alaska and the Nation, including those species dependent on vast relatively
undeveloped areas;” and determined the purposes of National Parks, National Wildlife
Refuges, and other federal conservation system units in Alaska. A common element of
the purposes for all of Alaska’s National Parks identified in ANILCA is the protection of
significant fish and wildlife populations and their habitats in their natural diversity.3 For
all National Wildlife Refuges, ANILCA identifies to, “conserve fish and wildlife
populations in their natural diversity,…”4 as a common purpose.
In recognition of the thousands of years of traditional subsistence practices of
indigenous Alaskans on these national conservation lands, all park and refuge units –
except Denali, Katmai, Glacier Bay and Kenai Fiords – are open to subsistence hunting
and gathering by rural Alaskans under ANILCA. Similar to other National Parks, ANILCA
closed Alaska’s National Parks to sport hunting, but National Preserves are open to sport
and subsistence hunting.
In recent years, the State of Alaska has pursued aggressive predator control measures
throughout many parts of Alaska. For example, the State has targeted wolves through
predator control programs. To further reduce predation, Alaska made it easier for
hunters to kill wolves and bears. Examples of this include the State’s elimination of a
122-square-mile protective buffer abutting Denali National Park, extending wolf seasons
to include months when wolves are rearing pups, increasing bag limits of wolves from
five to 20 per season, legalizing the baiting of brown bears, and using artificial lights to
rouse black bears in their dens so hunters can take aim at them as they leave. Because
the State of Alaska sets hunting regulations on federal land as well as state lands, these
regulations would have applied to Alaska’s 20 million acres of national preserves, if not
for the National Park Service issuing temporary bans every year.
3
4
ANILCA, Title II, sections 201 and 202.
ANILCA Title III, sections 302 and 303.
6
The National Park Service recently finalized a rule that prohibits hunting practices
designed to manipulate predator populations in national parks and preserves. This is a
permanent rule that complies with ANILCA. The manipulation of wildlife populations for
the purpose of artificially maintaining high levels of prey species is not an appropriate
approach for National Parks in Alaska, many of which are wilderness parks. This is
particularly true because predator control is not necessarily effective and does not
necessarily yield higher prey levels. A recent predator control program targeted to raise
Fortymile Caribou Herd numbers illustrates this point5, as it has not yielded higher
numbers of caribou after several years of control efforts. Allowing wildlife populations
to follow natural rhythms and fluctuations is a fundamental tenet of Ecology and
Conservation Biology6 and is appropriate for Alaska’s National Parks given their
purposes. Further, allowing wildlife populations to fluctuate naturally in Alaska’s
National Parks will likely aid wildlife species as they adapt to a changing climate, and this
will be an important service to all Americans.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also has restricted State management efforts to
manipulate predator numbers in Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuges, and these agency
decisions have been appropriate given the purposes of the refuges. The Fish and
Wildlife Service is presently developing similar regulations to the Park Service’s Rule.
Allowing wildlife populations to fluctuate naturally in Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuges
also will likely aid wildlife species as they adapt to a changing climate, which will be an
important service to all Americans.
Recommendation: Congress should ensure that conservation system units in Alaska are
not subject to the State’s aggressive, manipulative approach to predator management
and that the National Park Service’s recent wildlife regulation rule is upheld and remains
in effect.
Access and Navigable Waters:
In order to ensure the beneficial purposes of conservation system units established in
ANILCA, the federal government must be able to manage access and use of the
navigable waters flowing through Alaska’s conservation system units that often provide
the primary means of access to the units. Access under ANILCA is subject to reasonable
regulation by the federal government.
5
”Alaska’s Wolves and Bears Get New Protections”, by Krista Langlois, High Country News,
October 28th, 2015.
6
Both Ecology and Conservation Biology study the relationships of organisms and species to their
environment and are not focused on managing for single species of wildlife. The Cary Institute of
Ecosystem Studies provides an overview of Ecology and defines Ecology as: The scientific study of the
processes influencing the distribution and abundance of organisms, the interactions among organisms,
and the interactions between organisms and the transformation and flux of energy and matter.
http://www.caryinstitute.org/discover-ecology/definition-ecology. For a definition of Conservation Biology
go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_biology.
7
There are a number of provisions in ANILCA that address access. Sections 1110 and
1111 of ANILCA allow access to non-federal lands within or adjacent to conservation
system units and access for traditional activities. These sections guarantee access by
snowmachines, motorboats, airplanes and non-motorized surface transportation for
traditional activities and travel to and from villages and homesites. They also guarantee
access to inholdings and temporary access across conservation lands for exploratory
activities on State and private lands. Section 811 of ANILCA guarantees access for
subsistence uses and allows appropriate use for subsistence purposes of snowmachines,
motorboats, and other means of surface transportation traditionally employed by rural
residents, subject to reasonable regulation. Motorized boats and airplanes are
permitted in the Yukon Charley Rivers National Preserve, but hovercrafts are not
permitted. Reasonable regulation of boating is essential for the Federal Government to
ensure that any boats operating within the Preserve do not adversely affect the values
Congress sought to protect in establishing Yukon Charley Rivers National Preserve.
Alaska resident Sturgeon was notified by the National Park Service that he is not allowed
to drive a hovercraft on navigable waters within Yukon Charley Rivers National Preserve.
Mr. Sturgeon challenged the National Park Service’s authority to manage navigable
waters in his lawsuit that failed in the Alaska Federal District Court and Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.
Recommendation: Congress should not alter the necessary compromises achieved in
ANILCA sections 1110, 1111, and 810 regarding access to conservation system units and
designated wilderness areas in ANILCA, as they are designed to protect a subsistence
way of life and traditional activities by rural residents. They also are supported by many
stakeholders.
Misinterpretations Regarding the Future of Protected Lands and Wilderness in Alaska:
A number of vocal wilderness opponents in Alaska have misinterpreted the intent of
Congress in ANILCA regarding future wilderness recommendations and designations.
Congress recognized that passage of ANILCA was a beginning, not an end in itself, and
that the law’s promise would be fulfilled only in its implementation over time. Congress
structured the Act with three specific provisions to require (or, in the case of BLMadministrered lands, allow for) a public process to assure fair consideration of
wilderness values and suitability, including alternatives for further wilderness proposals,
and the U.S. Department of the interior agencies responsible for the management of
these lands have acted on these provisions. The ANILCA provisions include:

ANILCA sec. 1317, 16 U.S.C. sec. 3205, directed that for all lands within units of
the National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska, the
Secretary of the Interior was required to conduct a wilderness review and report
the findings to the President by 1985.ANILCA sec. 1001(b)(2), 16 U.S.C. sec.
314(b)(2), which required the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special
wilderness review for the lands between the National Petroleum Reserve –
8

Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Secretary was required to
forward the results of this study and any recommendations for new wilderness
to the President and Congress by 1988. ANILCA sec. 1001(e), 16 U.S.C. sec.
3141(e). The Bureau of Land Management conducted this review as required
and the Secretary submitted the Nigu River Wilderness recommendation to the
President and Congress on December 14, 1988.
ANILCA sec. 1320, 43 U.S.C. sec. 1784, specifically authorized the Secretary
regarding all other BLM lands to exercise discretion in conducting wilderness
reviews within general land use plans, stating that the Secretary “may identify
areas in Alaska” that the Secretary determines are suitable as wilderness and,
“may, from time to time, make recommendations to the Congress for inclusion
of any such areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System . . . .“
Section 1326(a) of ANILCA restricts how future withdrawals larger than 5,000 acres can
occur in Alaska, but because the section sets up a process for how larger withdrawals
can occur it is recognizes that they may occur. Section 1326(b) of ANILCA restricts
further studies for “the single purpose of considering the establishment of a
conservation system unit, national recreation area, national conservation area”, or for
related or similar purposes . . . .” This section does not restrict these activities in multipurpose studies, however, and most planning efforts by agencies are multi-purpose
studies.
Opponents of wilderness regularly misinterpret section 101(d) of ANILCA as a promise of
“no more” wilderness in Alaska. That section states the policy view of the 1980
Congress that it had struck “a proper balance” between conservation and development,
obviating the need for future legislation. 16 U.S.C. sec. 3101(d). However, the 1980
Congress was not so arrogant as to believe that it had foreseen future needs for all time.
To the contrary, Congress specifically structured ANILCA to include future wilderness
reviews and allow for the possibility of future wilderness designations in Alaska. An
example of Congress subsequently passing additional wilderness is the 1990 Tongass
Timber Reform Act which designated additional wilderness areas in the Tongass
National Forest.
In short, Congress felt it had struck a proper balance in 1980, but part of that balance
included the recognition that more study was needed, that the needs of society would
change, and that future Congresses might find it appropriate to designate more
wilderness. No provision of ANILCA closed options to future Congresses to designate
additional wilderness in Alaska. To the contrary, ANILCA specifically allowed for future
wilderness reviews and the potential of new wilderness designations.
Recommendation: Congress should follow the intent of ANILCA and not allow any
provisions that weaken ANILCA regarding future wilderness reviews and designation.
Also, Congress should act on wilderness recommendations that have been forwarded to
Congress, such as with the wilderness recommendation for the Arctic National Wildlife
9
Refuge.
BLM and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern:
BLM manages over 72 million surface acres in Alaska and the agency is currently in the
process of revising three management plans. As part of its revision of its management
plans, the agency is properly considering whether to establish Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern, as required by FLPMA.7 An ACEC is defined as an “area . . .
where special management attention is required . . . to protect and prevent irreparable
damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or
other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.”8
BLM is considering designating ACEC’s in the Eastern Interior Resource Management
Plan. There are no ACEC’s designated within the Eastern Interior Planning Area at this
time. The BLM’s designation of ACEC’s in Alaska does not implicate ANILCA’s section
1326(a) because ACEC designations do not “withdraw”9 lands. ANILCA’s section 1326(a)
is only implicated when there is a “withdrawal” of more than 5,000 acres of land by the
executive branch.10 Lands that are designated as ACEC’s within a BLM management area
are not “withdrawn”, do not take away any rights granted under public land laws and
are not a violation of ANILCA.
Recommendation: Congress should allow BLM to proceed unencumbered in fulfilling its
legal planning duties for lands under the agency’s management jurisdiction, as required
by FLPMA and ANILCA.
Conclusion:
The passage of ANILCA was an extraordinary accomplishment, protecting land, water,
wildlife, habitat and other natural resources that sustain Alaska’s unique cultural
heritage and subsistence way of life. The gains and protections accomplished under
ANILCA have benefitted the nation and Alaskans in a plethora of ways and have created
a base for cultural and economic survival for Alaskans, especially for those in remote
areas. This historic law established nearly 104 million acres of conservation system units
in Alaska, greatly increasing the size of the National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges,
and the National Wilderness Preservation System, adding 56.6 million acres of
designated Wilderness. It also ensured a priority for subsistence uses on federal lands,
access to subsistence resources, and the continuation of customary and traditional
7
FLPMA directs the Secretary to “give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical
environmental concern,” 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(3).
8
Id. at § 1702(a).
9
“Withdrawal” is defined in FLPMA to mean: the removal of lands from the operation of public
land laws. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(j). The definition of “withdrawal” under FLPMA should be afforded weight in
considering the term’s meaning in ANILCA, which does not define “withdrawal.” The canon of in pari
materia suggests that other statutes using the same terms regarding the same issues can be consulted to
determine the meaning of a term. See Jacob Scott, Codified Canons and the Common Law of
Interpretation, 98 Geo. L.J. 341, 374-75 (2010).
10
16 U.S.C. § 3213(a).
10
activities. Alaska’s irreplaceable ecosystems, proud culture, and unique needs have
been protected and accommodated under ANILCA, and this combination of benefits is
the key to the law’s decades of proven success. Congress should continue to reject all
proposed changes that weaken ANILCA.
11