|
Lawmakers explore options in the event the coastal plain of ANWR is declared a wilderness area A recent press report said the Clinton administration planned to designate 1.5 million acres in Alaska as a wilderness area Tracy Wilson PNA Staff Writer
The Alaska liaison for the U.S. Interior Secretary said July 9 that there are “no plans” to transform the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’ s oil-rich coastal plain into a national monument.
“It’s a rumor that comes back over and over,” said Marilyn Heiman, special assistant to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in Alaska, of a recent press report that the Clinton administration was proposing to designate 5 million acres in four western states — including 1.5 million in Alaska — as wilderness study, wilderness or national monument areas.
A June 14 article in the Washington Times did not indicate what part of Alaska would be designated, but the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a 1.5-million-acre area. There have been rumors the Department of the Interior would recommend monument designation for the coastal plain, eliminating any possibility of oil and natural gas exploration there.
Doing an end run around Congress? The Washington Times story also said the designations would be made before the 2000 presidential election to placate environmental voters, and quoted Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, as saying: “We have to be wary. They want to appease the extreme environmentalists who have this on their agenda and want this to happen.”
Murkowski, who is chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, in June also predicted: “In the next 19 months we will see a significant movement to usurp congressional authority.”
The 1906 Antiquities Act allows the President to create monuments by withdrawing land parcels from the public domain for preservation purposes.
Cam Toohey of Arctic Power in Anchorage has been in a state of heightened watchfulness as the 2000 election approaches because Clinton used the Antiquities Act during his 1996 reelection campaign to create the 1.7-million-acre Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah.
“It’s been very clear to us watching the election build up to 2000 that this threat is clear for the future,” he said. “We had felt this was definitely a possibility. We notified the delegation.”
Toohey said Alaska is somewhat protected because of the so-called “no-more clause” of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act which states that the executive branch cannot withdraw more than 5,000 acres in Alaska without congressional approval within one year after the notice of such a withdrawal. The protection of the clause only applies to Alaska.
But Toohey says that the White House may interpret the “no-more clause” differently and take the matter to court.
“There’s not a lot we can do ‘til something happens,” Toohey said.”It’s not a smart move when you look at the potential the coastal plain has.”
White House officials could not immediately be reached for comment about Clinton’s plans for ANWR.
Murkowski and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, introduced bills on June 16 calling for Babbitt to establish a competitive oil and gas leasing program on ANWR’s coastal plain, which, according to a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey report, sits atop 11.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil and has the potential for providing between 250,000 and 750,000 jobs in the future.
Environmentalists want the coastal plain set aside because they say it is ecologically delicate and that development there would ruin habitat for caribou and other wildlife.
Alaska’s congressional delegation and Gov. Tony Knowles, however, have said they believe development and exploration in the coastal plain can be done in an environmentally responsible and sensitive way.
“Gov. Knowles has been very clear in stating repeatedly that we support responsible development on the coastal plain,” said Bob King, Knowles’ press secretary. “We would use any tool available to us to challenge any unilateral withdrawal of the coastal plain from potential future development.”
Lawmakers who want that northwest chunk of ANWR opened say they are looking for ways to thwart a withdrawal of ANWR if it occurs.
“We’re studying a variety of options right now, but nothing has been identified as the primary vehicle to battle with at this point,” said Steve Hansen, spokesman for the House Resources Committee chaired by Young. “It looks as if (the Clinton administration officials) want to bypass Congress and the American people by using the regulatory process. Political employees who are federal bureaucrats are undermining legislative intent. The problem is, it’s difficult to do something about the regulations.”
Hansen said lawyers for the Resources Committee are studying the matter to determine what recourse is available in case the Interior Department does end up declaring ANWR a national monument in the near future.
“Just because the administration says it’s not going to do something doesn’t mean it won’t,” Hansen said. “They have a poor track record as far as telling the truth. It’s a situation where you can’t believe what they say.”
Public’s voice would be considered One way lawmakers could combat a move by the Clinton administration to lock up ANWR is with H.R. 1487, a bill approved in June by the Resources Committee that would provide for public participation in the declaration of national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906.
An amended version of the bill would require the Interior Secretary to comply with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in designating national monuments before the President could sign a proclamation.
The Interior Secretary would have to draft an environmental impact statement, hold public hearings and allow comments as well before any declaration of a national monument could be made.
Young added his name June 30 as a co-sponsor of the bill, which has not yet been scheduled for its next destination: the House floor.
Changes were made to the bill after John Leshy, Solicitor for the Interior Department, testified at a House Subcommittee on Parks and Lands hearing that Babbitt would recommend a veto of the bill if it was presented to the President.
Another year in committee Another ANWR-related bill, H.R. 1239, the Morris Udall Act, has also been referred to the House Resources Committee.
The bill sponsored by Rep. Bruce Vento, D-Minn., would, if passed, keep ANWR’s coastal plain off-limits for development.
“Powerful special interests seek to plunder this wilderness, and threaten the existence of an entire ecosystem for oil that will yield no return at today’s oil prices,” Vento said while introducing the bill March 23. “The Arctic Refuge is home to more than 200 species of wildlife ranging from musk oxen to polar bears. If we destroy a species, it could send a shock wave through the entire ecosystem and impact every species in its footprint — a devastating biological echo.”
Hansen said he doesn’t believe H.R. 1239 will go anywhere, however.
“Chairman Young doesn’t believe it’s good legislation and the Resources Committee will not consider it,” Hansen said. “The Vento bill is legislation that would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil and cost valuable funding for clean water and sanitation programs.”
| 