STATEMENT OF DON BARRY,

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BEFORE THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

CONCERNING S. 1683, A BILL TO AMEND

THE ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT

October 14, 1999

ANILCA is an historic compromise, a milestone in conservation legislation which also delicately balanced competing interests. S. 1683 would upset ANILCA's balances between conservation and development, resource protection and resource use, and subsistence uses and recreational activities. Rather than containing mere "technical corrections," the provisions of S. 1683 would force a significant policy reorientation of ANILCA, jeopardizing ANILCA's fundamental purposes. The Administration believes that ANILCA presently provides the tools necessary for successful implementation, as exemplified by our progress in resolving several controversial issues.

ANILCA's Purposes and Balances

ANILCA is widely considered to be one of the most important pieces of conservation legislation ever enacted. ANILCA puts in trust for future generations extraordinary features of America's "last frontier," largely as additions to the National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, National Wild and Scenic River, National Forest, and National Wilderness Preservation Systems. In the words of this Committee's 1979 report, the conservation system units in Alaska protect, among other things, "a full range of nature and history..., mighty landforms and entire ecosystems of naturally occurring...processes, intricate waterforms and spectacular shorelines, majestic peaks and gentle valleys, diverse plant communities and equally diverse fish and wildlife." Noting that "Alaska is unique in this country in that it is the last place where man has not adversely affected the balance of nature," this Committee generally directed that the new conservation system units be managed "on an ecosystem-wide basis with all of their pristine ecological processes intact."

ANILCA's primary purposes, as set out in Title I, are the establishment and protection of these large, "unrivaled" conservation system units and their associated resources, and the assurance that local rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life have the opportunity to continue to do so. ANILCA won support as "balanced" legislation, since it also provided various benefits and opportunities for the State of Alaska, Alaska Natives, and the private sector. For example, ANILCA facilitates substantial land disposition in furtherance of the Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and includes numerous opportunities for economic development.

With respect to development and use potentially in conflict with ANILCA's primary purposes, Congress carefully crafted provisions to govern the special circumstances of Alaska's large conservation system units concerning matters of transportation routes and methods, access to inholdings, and various other activities. These provisions generally liberalize the allowed uses in parks, refuges, and other conservation system units as compared to the "lower 48," but also protect the values and purposes of these areas.

ANILCA, an Historic Compromise, Should Be Left Intact and Allowed to Work

Mr. Chairman, ANILCA represents an historic compromise, a fair deal, forged after years of intense public debate. This thoroughly deliberated, carefully balanced compromise should be left intact absent the most compelling of circumstances. These compelling circumstances do not exist today.

In its own words, ANILCA "provides sufficient protection for the national interest in the scenic, natural, cultural and environmental values on the public lands in Alaska, and at the same time provides adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its people." ANILCA §101(d). This Committee adopted these words with the following explanation:

By enactment of this bill, the Congress seeks to resolve issues concerning the protection and allocation of Federal lands in Alaska which are of long standing, and which will have far-reaching consequences for both the Nation and the State. The provisions contained in this bill are the result of thorough congressional analysis and the weighing of many competing factors....The Congress believes that the results it has reached...are both a fair and equitable resolution of competing claims for protection and development of these lands, and reconcile, in the best manner possible, all the diverse and often conflicting elements which constitute the national interest in these lands....[T]he delicate balance between competing interests which is struck in the present bill should not be upset in any significant way. Id. at 136.

Heeding the advice of the 96th Congress, this Administration has continued to move forward with implementation of the existing law. Where controversy or conflict has arisen, we have tried to address the problem rationally and fairly. Later in this testimony, we shall provide examples of our accomplishments. Our point is: ANILCA does work.

S. 1683 appears to reject the advice of the 96th Congress and invite a return to the divisive, often bitter controversy that preceded ANILCA's passage. Furthermore, enactment of S. 1683 would jeopardize the continued preservation of ANILCA's unequaled legacy for this Nation.

S. 1683 Is a Sweeping Alteration of ANILCA's Fundamental Purposes

S. 1683 proposes twenty-five (25) changes to ANILCA, many of which are sweeping and significant in their effect, going way beyond a set of non-controversial technical amendments. S. 1683's major objectives include opening conservation system units (including national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, and national wilderness areas) to more roads, pipelines, airports, and other transportation and utility systems; limiting the federal agencies' abilities to protect the national resources included in these conservation system units; denying the wilderness values of the Alaska national interest lands; and elevating sport hunting and fishing to a purpose or co-dominant use of national wildlife refuges and national park preserves, in potential conflict with conservation of natural resources and the opportunity for subsistence harvest by local rural Alaskans.

We shall shortly provide the Committee a section-by-section analysis of the bill for inclusion in the record.

The Administration's reasons for opposing the various provisions of S. 1683 cover a range of concerns. The Administration opposes most provisions of S. 1683 because they would undermine the 1980 ANILCA compromise, to the harm of natural and cultural resources, subsistence uses, and other important purposes of ANILCA.

For example, section 2(d) of S. 1683 would reverse the current statutory approach to deciding whether to authorize the construction of transportation and utility systems through national parks, national wilderness areas, and other conservation system units in Alaska. ANILCA defines "transportation and utility systems" to include highways, pipelines, airports, railroads, canals, and electrical transmission systems, and more. ANILCA contains a clear preference for routing transportation and utility systems outside conservation system units if possible, and if not, for selecting an alternative route and method which would result in fewer or less severe impacts. Turning this preference on its head, proposed section 2(d) of S. 1683 would require that the transportation or utility system go through the conservation system unit if the alternative outside route were to any degree less economically feasible and prudent.

Another example of S. 1683's attack on ANILCA's core principles, and in this case the core principles of national wildlife refuges and national park preserves are sections 2(p) and 2(q), which would elevate fish and wildlife dependent recreation, including sport hunting and fishing, to a co-dominant use of the national wildlife refuges and a purpose of national park preserves in Alaska.

ANILCA already authorizes sport hunting and fishing in these areas, but ANILCA requires that these recreational activities be consistent with their fundamental and over-riding conservation purposes. ANILCA also requires that sport hunting and fishing be consistent compatible with the opportunity for subsistence uses by local rural Alaskan residents. When hunting or fishing must be restricted for conservation or subsistence purposes, ANILCA establishes a priority for subsistence users over recreational users.

In fact, with only limited exceptions, sport hunting and fishing are permitted on all national wildlife refuges and national park preserves in Alaska in accordance with state law. Despite ANILCA's generous authorization for wildlife dependent recreation and extensive opportunities for sport hunting and fishing on federal and state lands in Alaska, S. 1683 could be read to eliminate the compatibility tests for sport hunting and fishing and elevate these consumptive recreational activities to co-dominant uses of wildlife refuges and park preserves, equal to conservation and dominant over subsistence. The ultimate impact of S. 1683 changes would likely require interpretation by the courts, since they raise numerous questions and conflicts with other provisions and basic tenets of ANILCA.

Another example of where S. 1683 undermines ANILCA is the revision proposed for ANILCA Section 1326(a). Section 2(y) of S. 1683 would substantially expand the existing ANILCA provision for congressional approval of withdrawals of public lands exceeding 5000 acres by extending it to any action that "redesignates or reclassifies" more than 5,000 acres of Federal land "into a different or additional land management category land management category."

Section 2(y) of S. 1683 would seriously impair the ability of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to manage lands within their jurisdiction. It could require Congressional notice and action to authorize land use planning decisions, fire closure orders, subsistence hunting or fishing regulations, or other land use decisions. It would substantially increase the burden on the land managing agencies and on Congress, and could frustrate sound management of federal resources.

In addition to the provisions that represent significant detrimental changes to ANILCA as in the examples cited above, the Administration opposes other provisions of S. 1683 because they are simply unnecessary, unclear, or inappropriate.

For example, section 2(a) would require that all current and future federal public land managers in Alaska undertake an ANILCA training class as outlined in this legislation. While the Department agrees that managers, and indeed many other federal employees new to Alaska in our land-managing agencies, should receive training about ANILCA, this requirement need not be the subject of legislation. In fact, the Department of the Interior has expanded its ANILCA training programs as well as its commitment to providing appropriate training early in an employee's Alaska experience. We are now requiring most federal employees new to Alaska to view this videotape shortly after they arrive on duty. We plan to continue to provide "live" training sessions on ANILCA at least annually, and videotape updates as appropriate.

ANILCA Works: The Administration's Approach

After long and thorough debate, Congress provided in ANILCA the necessary tools for appropriately balancing intense interests in conservation, use, and development in the conservation system units in Alaska. The Administration is committed to using those tools and working with all the interested parties to solve problems and make progress within ANILCA's carefully structured balance.

The implementation of compromise legislation rarely delights all interests, and the implementation of ANILCA over the last fifteen years has not been without mistakes. Some difficult issues took more time than anyone expected, and sometimes lawsuits were filed to determine proper compliance and application of the law.

This Administration has worked to improve and advance ANILCA's implementation from the mundane issues of daily management to the major challenges, including access and subsistence issues. Secretary Babbitt and Secretary Glickman have installed excellent personnel in key leadership positions in Alaska, and we have outstanding employees in the field who routinely make sound land management decisions and work well with their Alaskan neighbors. In fact, the federal employees in Alaska are typically long-time residents of the state; for example, the average residency of employees in the Department of the Interior Secretary's Alaska Office is 18 years, and of employees in the Department's Regional Solicitor's Office is over 24 years. The Federal land managing agencies strive conscientiously to carry out ANILCA's mandates.

The Administration has tackled several controversial issues in Alaska, resolved some long-festering problems, and developed a foundation of achievement on which we continue to build.

We demonstrated our approach in a Clean Air Act case that concerned one of Alaska's best known conservation system units, Denali National Park and Preserve. In 1993, we reached settlement of litigation concerning an "adverse impact determination" filed by the previous Administration against the proposed air quality permit for the Healy Clean Coal Plant, to be built less than four miles from Denali National Park. By working with all the interested parties, we succeeded in fashioning an agreement that would allow construction of the coal-fired power plant and demonstration of its innovative environmental technology, while also assuring the protection of Denali's precious resources from the adverse impacts of air pollution.

The Department of the Interior has also issued needed regulations to implement Section 1307 of ANILCA. The Section 1307 regulations effectuate the statutory preferences for selecting providers of visitor services. Congress granted these preferences to historic operators, local residents, and the Native corporation most directly affected by the establishment or expansion of the associated conservation system unit. The lack of these regulations for more than fifteen years since ANILCA's enactment has hurt the federal agencies' ability to contract for visitor services and the potential providers' ability to take advantage of economic opportunities offered by the new conservation system units.

In conclusion, S. 1683 is an unwarranted and unwelcome attack on one of the most important pieces of land management legislation in this century. The natural and cultural resources protected by ANILCA are unparalleled, a priceless legacy for this Nation. The subsistence program and subsistence priority are unique, a just approach to protecting significant resources and the way of life that depends on these resources. The balances struck by ANILCA are wise and sound, providing the key to ANILCA's enactment and the structure for its implementation. S. 1683 would throw ANILCA substantially out-of-balance, exposing the resources to harm and the subsistence provisions to uncertainty. The Administration will not let this happen.

The Administration's section-by-section analysis will set forth the explanation for our opposition to all of S. 1683's provisions. We urge the Chairman to withdraw this legislation and let ANILCA work.

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any of your questions.