WILD ISSUES:
Recent Issues
Wilderness in Congress
Stewardship Concepts
System-wide Threats
Policy Guide
Essays & Whitepapers

The Future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is Being Decided—Help Keep it Wild!

Share

Suggested Provisions for an Arctic Refuge Last Great Wilderness Comprehensive Conservation Plan Alternative

Introduction
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will soon begin the scoping process for revision of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The revised plan will guide many aspects of management of the Refuge, especially the “on the ground” activities and uses of the Refuge. It also presents a historic opportunity to recommend that the plan include a wilderness review for all refuge lands that are not designated as Wilderness, including the coastal plain.

Due to its vast size, remoteness, and diversity of ecologically significant landscapes and wildlife, the Arctic Refuge is an irreplaceable national treasure. Preserving these qualities both from incremental changes brought about through recreational visitation, and development interests or from industrial exploitation, is a great challenge that must be addressed by the revised plan. If we are to keep the Arctic Refuge wild and pass it on to those who come after us, a strong, effective plan is essential.

The following suggestions were developed by Arctic Refuge Defenders, an ad hoc group of experienced veterans of stewardship and advocacy for the Refuge. Collectively, they have known the Refuge well, over an extensive period of time, and have observed declining wilderness qualities in some parts of the Refuge. Several were active in carrying out stewardship of the Refuge as resource professionals. They are aware of the challenges that face the conservation community as it joins in revision of the Arctic Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

The Last Great Wilderness Alternative, prepared during the first CCP process (1986) and supported by volunteers and staff of the Northern Alaska Environmental Center served as a foundation for this document. Those provisions are updated and offered so concerned citizens are better informed and able to focus their comments for maximum effectiveness in the CCP scoping process. (See the endorsements below for more information about Arctic Refuge Defenders).
Back to top

Wilderness and Ecological Values
The plan must ensure uncompromised protection and perpetuation of the Refuge’s wilderness qualities and recommend wilderness designation for those areas that are suitable but not currently designated. Wilderness reviews and recommendations for all non-designated lands should be incorporated in the plan, including those lands within the coastal plain (1002 area)

The plan should recognize that all indigenous animals and plants have intrinsic value in this intact community of life and must be allowed to exist in their natural diversity, with their natural cycles and interactions continuing. Thus, predator control and other means of reducing the numbers of predators and carnivores to increase the number of game animals must be prohibited.

It should specify that research be conducted to determine if trophy hunting may cause changes in the genetics or distortion of natural age and sex structures of game populations in the Refuge.

Indigenous Cultures and Subsistence Use
For untold thousands of years, the lands and waters now in the Arctic Refuge nurtured and sustained indigenous people. Maintenance of the natural ecosystems within the Refuge is essential for continuation of this special relationship. The plan must safeguard opportunities for subsistence use according to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and conservation principles.
Back to top

Recreation
The Refuge should continue to focus on providing opportunities for authentic adventure, challenge, discovery and exploration, as well as solitude. Subject to protection of wilderness qualities, respect for visitor independence, self-reliance, and freedom must be an important management goal. The plan should recognize that where these conditions prevail in real wilderness, there can be risks. The agency should not attempt to make the area “safe” or assume responsibility for the visitor.

Agency presence should be as subtle, unobtrusive, and low profile as possible.

Recreational “improvements” – facilities, cabins, trails, bridges, signs, etc., must be prohibited.

The agency should implement use limits on rivers where overuse is occurring and should be proactive in preventing crowding and disruption of wildlife everywhere. Implement group size limits of 7 for backpacking groups and 10 for river floating groups.

In specific areas where the rationing of use is necessary it must not favor commercial guiding operations or people with greater financial resources.

The Firth – Mancha Research Natural Area should be designated as a commercial free zone. This is one of the most remote parts of the Refuge and has unique ecological characteristics that require special protection.

For hunting, the highest standards of sportsmanship and fair-chase must be required. The use of airplanes for game spotting should be prohibited.

Competitive events such as racing should be prohibited.

Flight seeing over the Refuge should be discouraged.
Back to top

Information and Interpretation
The Refuge interpretive program should focus on providing leave-no-trace information and on encouraging behaviors that minimize impacts on resources, visitors, and subsistence users. Information that educates the public about the natural history of the Refuge and its biological and physical qualities deepens the appreciation of visitors without detracting from their ability to experience the Refuge as an unmodified landscape, and should be encouraged.

To maintain the Refuge’s aura of exploration, mystery, and “the unknown,” the agency should not produce materials that feature the “attractions.” Nor should it develop materials recommending campsites, routes, river crossings etc. that domesticate the experience and lessen the spirit of adventure, self-reliance, and independence.
Back to top

Access
While airplanes are a valid means of access, the damage to fragile tundra surfaces caused by their unrestricted use needs to be curtailed. Prohibit construction of airstrips. Designate the Firth-Mancha Research Natural Area as an area free of all forms of mechanization, including airplanes.

Establish a system of designated landing zones, so that several days of backpacking time is assured between zones without encountering aircraft on the ground, or low flying aircraft. Request the FAA to establish a reasonable aircraft closure over the areas between landing zones.

Do not allow airboats, jet boats, and helicopters for public access. Agency access must be subject to minimum requirement/ minimum tools policy and analysis.

Do not allow motor boats on mountain lakes where their use is neither traditional nor necessary for access.
Back to top

Inholdings
The plan should identify the purchase of private inholdings from willing sellers as a high priority. In cases where owners want to retain ownership and traditional uses, but also wish the land to remain protected from developments that would be harmful to the Refuge, conservation easements should be considered. The plan should also prescribe a process for determining what is “reasonable access” for private inholdings and when such access is authorized across refuge lands.
Back to top

Climate Change
The plan should recognize the special value of the undisturbed ecosystems of the Arctic Refuge and their role in understanding the cumulative effects of human developments and climate change in the Arctic region. This “scientific control” concept was a major justification for establishment of the original Wildlife Range in 1960. Its value is much greater today due to the expanding development elsewhere in the arctic and the increasing speed of climate change.

In order to realize its maximum value as a control area, the Refuge’s undisturbed, and un-manipulated nature must be maintained. Scientific activities conducted in the Refuge must remain unobtrusive, avoid disturbance of wildlife, and not involve habitat manipulation. The installation of scientific instruments and facilities should be prohibited. The introduction of species not native to the Refuge should not be allowed. Native species, such as polar bears and caribou, need the undisturbed conditions of the Refuge now, more than ever, as they face the double jeopardy of development impacts and climate change on other parts of their range.

The plan should be pro-active in protecting the integrity of the Refuge from impacts associated with increased shipping and cruise ship use of the North West Passage as the polar ice pack continues to melt. For example, strict prohibition of the use of helicopters to transport tourists from cruise ships into the Refuge should be implemented before problems develop.
Back to top

Agency Actions
Consistent with actions necessary to protect the Refuge’s wilderness character, the agency should be as unobtrusive as possible in its management, research, and law enforcement actions.

Administrative structures and installations should be prohibited and the cluster of unsightly buildings on the shore of Peters Lake should be removed.

Intrusive research techniques and technologies, and helicopter use should be prohibited, except where they are truly the minimum tool necessary to administer the area as wilderness. VIP helicopter tours should be expressly prohibited.

Archeological and cultural resources should be left in their natural context unless threatened by loss. Excavations undertaken for scholarly papers, graduate degrees etc. should be prohibited.

Features that are currently nameless should remain so. The agency should not propose or support the naming of any features.
Back to top

Conclusion
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge stands as a national benchmark of wild naturalness, ecological integrity, scenic beauty and exceptional wilderness experience opportunity. To assure its preservation, the agency should develop, adopt and follow a mission statement that emphasizes protecting the natural, existing wilderness qualities of the Refuge in a manner that avoids incremental, human-caused changes that alter the opportunity and way visitors encounter the Refuge. The Arctic Refuge experience should never be offered or appear to the public as a commodity, but rather as a rare opportunity to experience an authentic natural landscape that has remained uncontrolled by humans since the beginning of time. In this manner our great grandchildren should be able to find this same enduring wilderness and pass it on, undiminished forever.
Back to top

Endorsements
The above provisions were developed and are endorsed by the following:

Averill Thayer (the first manager of the Arctic Refuge, 1969 -1981)Don Ross (former assistant manager of the Arctic Refuge, 1975 – 1984, and Refuge bush pilot 1985-2000)

Jon Miller (mountaineer, hunter, wilderness trekker)

Keith Echelmeyer (glaciologist, mountaineer, pilot, wilderness trekker 1983 - 2010)

Susan Campbell (educator, wilderness trekker)

Don Pendergrast (former planner and chief of interpretation for Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, and wilderness trekker)

John Luther Adams (composer, writer, former executive director of Northern Alaska Environmental Center)

Cynthia Adams (entrepreneur, president and CEO Grantstation.com)

Frank Keim (educator, writer, naturalist and wilderness trekker 1989 - 2010)

Fran Mauer (former Arctic Refuge planner, 1976 – 1981, Arctic Refuge wildlife biologist, 1981-2002)

Back to top

Share