More Land To Be Locked Up

[Sourdough]

Got this from today's Fairbanks Daily News Miner.  As if there was not enough land already locked up, now they want to relook at what else can be put off limits.  Remember they said all the wilderness designations under ANILCA would not lock up the land.  They said ANWR would be set aside but drilling would still be permitted.  Do you know anyone that actually goes to Gates Of The Artic to see the park.  I don't, I've never met anyone that has gone there to see the park itself.  I do know a bunch of guys that have been there because the only drop-off for float trips on some good rivers is lakes inside the park.  They all wish the lakes were outside the park so they would not have to worry about the Park Service Natzies.  Anyway, this is the first time in a long time I have agreed with anything Dermot Cole has said.



Federal land directive signals major policy shift in Alaska
by dermotcole
 Dermot Cole
Dec 30, 2010
 
The announcement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to conduct a "wilderness inventory" of BLM land in Alaska and to create a new category called "Lands with Wilderness Characteristics" signals the biggest change in federal land policy in years.

While Salazar said his plan "does not 'lock up' western lands from other uses, as I am sure some people will claim," the move may lead to new restrictions on the use of millions of acres in Alaska managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

The 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is subject to this new level of regulation.

"The BLM must inventory the lands in NPR-A and may designate Wild Lands in NPR-A as part of its integrated activity planning for the area. Consistent with controlling law, the BLM will continue to conduct an expeditious program of competitive oil and gas leasing in the reserve," an Interior Department statement said.

The addition of "Wild Lands" in NPR-A could create a new tool to oppose  oil and gas development in that part of Alaska. It could also have implications for development on various other parts of the other 50 million acres under BLM management.

Salazar, who announced this change just before Christmas, has given new marching orders to the Interior Department to overturn  the planning approach that has been in place since 2003 on BLM land in Alaska.

There has been an off-again, on-again planning system for BLM land in Alaska over the past 30 years.

In 2003, Interior Secretary Gale Norton said the Bush administration wanted to accommodate the views of Alaska's political leaders, who opposed additional restrictions on federal land. She reversed the position taken by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in 2001. Babbitt, for his part, had reversed the position that had been in effect for 20 years.

In dumping the Babbitt approach, Norton concluded that BLM wilderness study proposals could only proceed if they had "broad support among the state and federal officials representing Alaska." They didn't have broad support, so they didn't take place.

The federal stance has changed again under Salazar, who says that the Obama administration "accepts the invitation extended by Congress" in 1980 to "identify public lands in Alaska suitable for designation as wilderness."

His department released a Q&A on the new policy that says, "There has never been a statewide wilderness inventory in Alaska."

However, the BLM and other federal agencies have released many reports over the years that say, "Alaska lands were exhaustively inventoried, reviewed and studied for their wilderness values under the Wilderness Act criteria, beginning in 1971, when Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act."

Most of the 1970s were consumed by reviews of Alaska land to determine which should be called wilderness and which should be placed in parks, refuges, forests, etc.

Congress settled the future of Alaska land, or at least it was thought to be settled, when it chose to put 150 million acres in "conservation units." This  is more than 40 percent of the land in Alaska and 60 percent of the federal land.

A total of 57 million acres was designated as wilderness, which means that there is to be no lasting sign of man's presence on the land.

The Interior Department said that before  new "Wild Lands" are named in Alaska, there will be  "robust public comment and involvement."



Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - entry Federal land directive signals major policy shift in Alaska

[Dand]

I heard part of a discussion about this on All Things Considered today - but not all of it.  They were talking especially about oil development in the NPRA and Teshepuk Lake.

I find some of the comments quoted above as pretty amusing. Every one of the Federal CSU managers up here knows exactly how much official wilderness they have and have a very good idea of what they might want or be able to add if allowed.  It is pretty deceiving to say there has been no inventory. I bet they could have a very good handle on it in a week.

I seem to remember sitting in on some Togiak Refuge Public Use Planning sessions where there were discussions as to whether there were any more waterways that could be considered for Wild and Scenic status.  I think I sat on some Comprehensive Plan sessions where there were discussions of what might be added to wilderness - IF the wilderness restriction were to be lifted.

I wonder how this might play into some of the new demands we heard at AFN regarding subsistence management etc?

This development deserves very close watch.  There may be a few places where I'd support expansion but a lot where I would be very opposed.

[Sourdough]

making a river a Wild and Scenic River creates a conflict.  The federal Government does not own the river, the courts have already said All navtagable waters belong to the state of Alaska.  We are having a serious problem with the NPS Rangers enforcing their rules on people out on the Yukon River.  These rangers are running rough shod over the locals, for no real reason.  Yet someone with the money to fight back they just sit there and don't do anything.  Beaver Creek is a good example.  They made it a Wild and Scenic river.  Now no motorboats over 15hp allowed on the river.  Water is a bit too swift for a 15hp boat to come back up stream.  A friend of mine who has the money to take them to court and would in a heart beat, goes down there and starts unloading his boat with a 45hp motor.  NPS Rangers come up and tell him he cannot use that boat here, it is a Wild and Scenic river, no motors over 15hp.  My friend corrects them telling them they have no authority on the water and he is taking the boat to his cabin downstream, and coming back in a week.  They again tell him he cannot do it, He says "Cite me".  The NPS Rangers called the Troopers to try and get them to enforce the rules about no motors on that river.  Troopers said "We don't enforce your rules".  The Rangers failed to cite him and left, my friend took his boat to his cabin.  He has heard nothing from it.

The ANILCA Law said "There would be no more lands set aside into Parks and Preserves".  Now they want to ignore that law, because it does not suite them..

[Dand]

That's right - I remember that fuss on the Yukon.  It got more attention during election time.  I wonder what is going on with that now?  And of all rivers! You can drive nearly a ship up the Yukon.  I think I recall you telling the Beaver Cr. story before. It will be interesting to see how things develop now.  Have  you seen that the Togiak Refuge has instituted a permit system for the Kanektok and parts of the Goodnews (I think)? I fought that for years but was frustrated to be a single low level State guy to carry that battle. Maybe Parnell will throw some people with horsepower on the issue and push for some resolution?  But the feds hold a lot of cards. I could imagine them holding back funds and all sorts of other tricks.