Wilderness Watch

- By Hilary Wood

Spring is an impressive time in Alaska’s Matanuska Valley. Though the sun lingers until 11:00pm, the hillside foliage and aspen stands are just beginning to green, bringing color and an increased sense of life to the tundra. The birds are out, and even from the valley floor it is easy to spot Dall sheep grazing the steep hillsides. Paired with the looming splendor of the Chugach range, the valley is an ideal setting for a meeting dedicated to Alaska Wilderness – its unique size and character, and the threats that endanger some of America’s most wild lands.

Sponsored by the Alaska Chapter of Wilderness Watch and The Wilderness Society, the Alaska Forum convened May 6-8, 2004 at the Majestic Valley Wilderness Lodge. The forum brought together two dozen wilderness advocates, including representatives from 10 conservation organizations, two law firms, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Collectively, the participants brought well over a hundred years of experience to the table, including in-depth knowledge of Alaska Wilderness, the Wilderness Act, and the National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Perhaps most importantly, the participants also carried with them their immense passion for wilderness, for places set aside where the “earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.”

The focus of the Alaska Forum was manifold. Like the Wilderness Forum held in Montana in 2003 (see the May 2003 Wilderness Watcher), the Alaska Forum worked to foster a shared understanding that the Wilderness Act’s mandate to preserve wilderness character is the overarching principle of wilderness stewardship. In recognition of the unique history and breadth of Alaska Wilderness, the Forum went on to explore the nexus between the Wilderness Act and ANILCA and to develop strategies to address the key threats to the State’s vast wilderness lands.

Fulfilling the Vision of ANILCA

We still have an agenda to fulfill. Some mandates of ANILCA have not yet been implemented…In my opinion, what needs to be done is to fulfill completely the mandates of the ANILCA legislation.”
— Jimmy Carter, 2000

Enacted in 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act granted protection to more than 104 million acres of federal land in Alaska, including 56 million acres of Wilderness and 26 wild and scenic rivers. Crafted to address the unique characteristics of Alaska, ANILCA sought to protect entire ecosystems, including wildlife and the traditional lifestyles of rural and native people. Though the passage of ANILCA included compromise, the bill President Carter signed into law in December 1980 was a strong piece of conservation legislation. Unfortunately, the initial implementation of ANILCA occurred during the Reagan administration, under the not-so-gentle care of James Watt. For 8 years, Watt and his successors worked to undercut ANICLA, ensuring that agency policies and regulations to implement the Act remained ineffectual. Partly due to this sabotage, many of ANILCA’s key mandates have yet to be fulfilled – especially in terms of Wilderness protection and stewardship.

In recognition of this failing, the Alaska Wilderness Forum sought to examine the nexus between ANILCA and the Wilderness Act to identify opportunities for ensuring proper stewardship practices for Alaska Wilderness. Due to its length and unusual implementation, ANILCA is a complex and often daunting piece of legislation. Luckily, Forum attendees were guided through these difficulties by two attorneys, Bob Randall of Trustees for Alaska and Eric Jorgensen of Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund. Their expertise was essential for understanding the interplay between the two Acts, allowing attendees to identify current and potential threats to Wilderness, as well as exploring ways in which these threats might be challenged.

For example, it was noted that while ANILCA is a separate piece of legislation, the Wilderness Act applies unless it is expressly stated otherwise. Why is this important? In many ways the Wilderness Act provides stronger direction for the proper stewardship of Wilderness, including the overarching mandate to preserve wilderness character.

Likewise, it was noted that while ANILCA 1110(b) allows “adequate and feasible access” to inholdings, such access is subject to reasonable regulations to protect “the natural and other values of such lands.” There are cases in Alaska where inholders sought and gained motorized access to inholdings, even when such access resulted in damage to the Wilderness. The agency approval of their actions passed by unchallenged due to the belief that such use was allowed by ANILCA and that agency personnel have the discretion to approve motorized access. However, the Act does not state that “adequate and feasible” must entail motorized use, and the mandate to protect natural values should preclude agencies from allowing degradation to occur.
In short, a detailed examination of ANILCA and the Wilderness Act revealed that opportunities exist for ensuring the ethical stewardship of Alaska Wilderness even though the former includes a number of exceptions that are currently being exploited. The two examples detailed above illustrate just a few of the ways in which the true intent of ANILCA – the lasting preservation of Alaskan lands, wildlife, and peoples – can be reclaimed.

Alaska Wilderness – Threats & Challenges

Alaska Wilderness faces a number of threats, many of which are familiar to Wilderness areas in the Lower 48, and many that are unique. Forum attendees identified the major challenges wilderness advocates face in seeking to protect and ensure the stewardship of lands designated by ANILCA. From this list, the group developed strategies to address key threats, and took steps to implement a proactive plan for stopping degradation before it occurs.

Similar to Wilderness in the contiguous United States, Alaska Wilderness is threatened by unethical and abusive motorized use. This is not surprising for a problem that is quickly becoming endemic nationwide, yet the ways in which it has infiltrated Alaska are unique. For example, there is intense pressure from some motorized groups to include recreational motorized use under the definition of “traditional activities.” Section 1110(a) of ANILCA allows for the use of motorized equipment for traditional activities such as subsistence use for native and rural peoples. The use of motorized equipment for purely recreational use was never imagined by the Act, and is in no way traditional or essential to a subsistence lifestyle. In fact, often the people lobbying for a recreational inclusion enjoy an urban lifestyle in Anchorage and have never practiced a traditional or subsistence lifestyle.

In addition, motorized interests are also exploiting the definitions of “rural” and “local” resident subsistence use to gain motorized access to Wilderness. Title 8 of ANILCA states that priority be given rural residents, including the use of motorized equipment for subsistence use where it was once traditionally performed. Thanks to the efforts of motorized advocates, the definition of rural has expanded to include more urbanized areas. In addition, some individuals living in Anchorage and Fairbanks have registered a PO box in rural communities and claimed motorized access as a “local”.

The increase of motorized incursions into Alaska Wilderness results in on-the-ground impacts as well as damage to the more spiritual aspects of wilderness character. Opportunities for solitude are diminished, as well as the sense that we are part of a greater and interconnected community of life. Damage from motorized use is readily observable in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park Wilderness, with damage to fragile tundra evident for years after the abuse occurred.

Motorized abuse is just one of the threats identified at the Wilderness Forum. Other threats include the impacts of new technology, lack of agency understanding and/or dedication to preserving wilderness character, poor management plans, a political climate hostile to Wilderness, a lack of public awareness and involvement, and pressure from special interests to exploit ANILCA exceptions.

We are hopeful that the strategies developed at the Alaska Forum take a firm step toward curbing the degradation of Alaska Wilderness. Far from viewing Wilderness solely as a place where certain actions are prohibited, it is essential to view Wilderness for what it provides – the opportunity to experience solitude, connection, and restraint, and to view the last intact ecosystems free from the control and manipulation of man. Aided by a clear understanding of the safeguards provided by ANILCA and the Wilderness Act, as well as the threats facing America’s most pristine Wilderness, Forum attendees came away heartened that Alaska Wilderness can survive as a resource of inestimable value for future generations.