.gif){kind=small}
NPS and ANILCA
MENU
ANCSA
|
The National Park Service and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980: Administrative History Chapter Two: The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act |
|
C. Origins of the National Interest Lands Provision (17(d)(2)) (continued)
As the Alaska Natives and their allies regrouped in spring 1971 for what most believed would be the last act in the legislative process of an Alaska Native claims settlement bill, those who had cause to believe that the bill should be broadened to include a provision that would permit the designation of wilderness and provide for the addition to the park and refuge systems mobilized as well. A number of conservation organizations would unite to form the Alaska Coalition to more efficiently work for a national interest lands provision. [36] Earlier the governing council of the Wilderness Society had agreed to become involved in the effort, and by mid-March, Stewart Brandborg had asked the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to consider including a five-year, land-use planning program for Alaska. On May 3 Brandborg testified before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, suggesting, among other things, that they include a provision that would authorize the identification, preservation, and establishment of "areas of national significance as units of the National Park and National Wildlife Refuge and National Wilderness Preservation systems" in any Alaska Native claims settlement. Others in the conservation community would approach Representatives John Saylor and Morris Udall of Arizona to secure their help. By May Congressman Saylor had let it be known that he would offer an amendment that would require land-use planning in Alaska as a part of any settlement. [37]
Saylor apparently decided, however, that success in the House would be difficult to achieve and that it would be necessary to secure help in the Senate. He called Nathaniel P. Reed, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, to ask his help in building up support for a national interest lands provision in a senate bill. [38]
Representative Saylor also called NPS Director George Hartzog to ask that he approach Nevada Senator Alan Bible, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, to enlist his help. Although Hartzog was unable to obtain a commitment from Senator Bible at that time, he did convince the senator to accompany him to Alaska the coming summer (1971) to inspect potential park areas in the state. [39]
That August Hartzog, Bible, their wives, and several of Senator Bible's friends traveled in Alaska, viewing potential park areas that included Gates of the Arctic, areas in the Kenai Peninsula, Skagway, and possible extensions to Mount McKinley National Park and Katmai National Monument. [40] Upon their return, Senator Bible promised Hartzog that he would sponsor a park study amendment that fall, and also indicated that he would arrange to be on any conference committee held on the bill should that be necessary. Senator Bible requested, in turn, that Director Hartzog provide him with the appropriate language of an amendment. [41]
Director Hartzog understood that the amendment Senator Bible had agreed to introduce would address additions to the National Park System in Alaska with an additional 4,000,000 acres for "minor boundary adjustments" at existing wildlife refuges and national forests. Among the areas Hartzog envisioned in an expanded National Park System in Alaska were a huge Gates of the Arctic National Park that extended north from the Arctic Circle across the Naval Petroleum Reserve to the Arctic Ocean, conversion of Arctic Wildlife Range to a national park that would be eventually a part of a great international park in northeast Alaska-northwest Canada, a large park in the Wrangell-St. Elias Mountains that would adjoin a proposed "Yukon National Park" in Canada, sizeable additions to Mount McKinley National Park and Katmai National Monument, and a number of areas along the western shore that would be part of a Russo-American Land Bridge International Park. Hartzog's proposal to Bible for additions to the National Park System was one of the most far-reaching in the history of the National Park Service. Hartzog thought in much larger terms than nearly anyone inside or outside the Service at that time. His proposal included not only all of the areas identified by the Alaska staff in 1971, but nearly all the "zones and sites" identified by George Collins' special Alaska task force in 1965. In all, Hartzog delineated some twenty-seven potential areas and additions to two existing ones that totaled approximately 75,000,000 acres, an amount that would have tripled the size of the system. [42]
Hartzog was apparently concerned that Congress might fail to include a park study provision, however. On August 14, while still in Alaska with Senator Bible, he wrote Secretary of the Interior Hickel, suggesting that he use his authority to withdraw areas in Alaska that were of "prime interest pending their consideration for addition to the National Park System." [43]
Hartzog ordered bureau staff to prepare draft language of an amendment for Senator Bible's use. [44] At the same time, others had approached Senator Bible for the same purpose. Harry Crandell, the Wilderness Society's director of wilderness review, discussed the possibility of amending any claims bill with the Senator, as did Dr. Edgar Wayburn and Lloyd Tupling from the Sierra Club, and Stewart Brandborg, executive director of the Wilderness Society. [45] Apparently, Senator Bible received draft language for an amendment from the conservation community. It is certain, too, that he had conferred and received input from Senator Henry Jackson, chairman of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and Senator Gaylord Nelson, both co-sponsors of the amendment. He may have been also in contact with Representatives John Saylor and John Dingell, who was exploring the possibilities of an amendment relating to wildlife refuges. Committee staff rewrote the amendment, regardless of whose draft was submitted to Senator Bible.
It has not been possible to confirm whose language served as a basis for the amendment introduced by Senator Bible. [46] In one sense that question is less important than is the knowledge that a growing consensus demanded that disposition of the public lands in Alaska take into account the national interest as well as state and Native claims. Yet, at the same time, George Hartzog always believed, as he does to this day, that the amendment Senator Bible introduced was intended to be primarily a vehicle for additions to the National Park System in Alaska. [47] There is some evidence to support his belief. In the first place, Senator Bible's interest was, primarily, in parks and recreation. He maintained a close relationship with and seems to have listened closely to George Hartzog on matters regarding parks. In a short discussion with Senator Ted Stevens when he introduced his amendment, moreover, Senator Bible mentioned three areas—a proposed Gates of the Arctic National Park, and extensions to Mt. McKinley National Park and Katmai National Monument. [48] Senator Jackson, moreover, described the amendment that he had co-sponsored as a "park study" amendment. [49] It must be noted, however, that both parks and refuges were included in the amendment introduced. Despite any promises made to George Hartzog, the amendment Senator Bible introduced on November 1 gave no indication of how that land was to be divided, or that a majority would be set aside for additions to the National Park System.
Whatever the case may be, there is no question that George Hartzog played a crucial role in securing a national interest lands provision in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. He was, without question, instrumental in Senator Bible's decision to sponsor a national interest lands amendment, and that decision was made following the trip the two made to Alaska in August 1971. [50]
By the end of September 1971 the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs finally approached the end of an arduous summer s work when it reported H.R. 10367, a settlement bill introduced by Representative Wayne Aspinall of Colorado. Representative Saylor had fulfilled his promise to work for a land use planning amendment, but the committee had soundly rejected his efforts. At the same time, the committee did feel pressure from the conservationists. The bill reported on September 28 included a provision drawn by Representative John Kyl of Iowa that essentially extended the "Udall freeze"—withdrawing all unreserved public lands from entry until the Secretary of the Interior determined they could be reopened. [53]
Conservationists considered the Kyl amendment to be inadequate. In a meeting between conservation leaders and Morris Udall, the broad outlines of an amendment that he and Representative Saylor would introduce were drawn. [54] On October 14, 1971, Representatives Udall and Saylor introduced a substitute bill that included the strong national interest lands amendment agreed to in discussions with conservationists. When that bill was referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Representative Udall introduced a broad land use planning amendment to H.R. 10367 on October 20. It was not, he said, "a simple little amendment." Rather, the amendment, which was introduced on Representative Saylor's behalf as well, was a lengthy and complicated piece of legislation. [55]
Of particular concern here, was the provision that directed the Secretary of the Interior to review, identify, and withdraw up to 50,000,000 acres in unreserved land and up to 50,000,000 acres in previously classified lands for study for possible inclusion in the National Park System, National Refuge System, National Resource Lands (multiple-use areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management), National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and National Forest System. [56]
Identification and withdrawal of up to 100,000,000 acres would be completed within six months. [57] Within three years after the passage of the bill, and based upon detailed study of the withdrawn areas, the Secretary of the Interior would recommend study areas, and "adjacent areas which he may deem appropriate," for inclusion in the above systems to the President and Congress. [58]
Concerns did exist, despite attempts by supporters of the Udall-Saylor amendment to ameliorate them, that withdrawal of large areas in the state would conflict with settlement of land claims of the Alaska Natives. Others argued that withdrawal of conservation lands would place still another roadblock to construction of the oil pipeline. Earlier the Sierra Club had called its regional representatives to Washington to work for a national interest lands amendment, and, along with the Wilderness Society had set up an intensive lobbying effort on behalf of the Udall-Saylor amendment. [59] They were unable, however, to overcome heavy lobbying by the Natives and their supporters in civil rights organizations, oil companies, state of Alaska, and administration representatives, who helped to defeat the amendment. Nevertheless it was clear that considerable support for some kind of national interest lands provision existed. The amendment failed by a vote of 217-178. The strength of support for the amendment—a switch of 20 votes would have changed the outcome—helped set the stage for up-coming action in the Senate. [60]
By the time the Senate took up debate on Senator Henry Jackson's version of a settlement bill (S. 35) on November 1, most of the details of the bill had been generally accepted. As a result, there were no more than a handful of senators on the floor when Senator Bible introduced what he called a "reasonable and non-controversial" amendment:
(4) In making the classifications required by subsection (c)(1) hereof the Secretary shall, after consultation with the Planning Commission, conduct detailed studies and investigations of all unreserved public lands in Alaska, including classified lands, and of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 and the Rampart Power site withdrawal which are suitable under existing statutory and administrative criteria for inclusion as recreation, wilderness, wild rivers, or wildlife management areas within the National Park and the National Wildlife Refuge Systems, and every six months shall advise the Congress for a period of three years from the date of passage of this Act of the location, size, and values of such area, his recommendations with respect to such areas, and shall simultaneously with notification to the Congress withdraw these areas from any appropriation under the public land laws, including application of the mining and mineral leasing laws, until such time as the Congress acts upon the Secretary's recommendations, but not to exceed five years. In making the detailed studies and investigations and in identifying such areas, the Secretary shall consider areas recommended to him by the Planning Commission. Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, initial identification of lands desired to be selected by the State pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act and by the Commission pursuant to sections 13(g)(3) and 19 of this Act may be made within any area withdrawn pursuant to this paragraph, but such lands shall not be tentatively approved or patented so long as the withdrawal of such areas remains in effect: Provided, That selection of lands by Native villages pursuant to sections 13(g)(1) and 14(h) and rights granted pursuant to section 21 of this Act shall not be affected by such withdrawals and such lands may be patented and such rights granted as authorized by this Act. In the event Congress enacts legislation setting aside any areas withdrawn under the provisions of this paragraph which the Natives or the State desired to select, then other unreserved public lands shall be made available for alternative selection by the Natives and State. Any time periods established by law for Native or State selections are hereby extended to the extent that delays are caused by compliance with the provisions of this paragraph.
The Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee previously had Secretary of the Interior to included a provision (Sec. 24(c)) in S. 35 that directed the
conduct a detailed study of all public lands in Alaska to determine their suitability for inclusion in, or their establishment as new areas of, the national park system or the national wildlife refuge system. The Secretary is to report his recommendations to the Congress and to complete the study within 3 years. [62]
Senator Bible's "clarifying" amendment answered questions raised as to how that process would work. He added classified lands, as well as Pet 4 and the Rampart Dam Power Site withdrawal to the unreserved lands to be reviewed; provided that the Secretary would report to Congress on the status of the review—size, location, and values of each area—every six months for a period of three years; and extended the withdrawal period for lands recommended to Congress for inclusion in one of the conservation systems from the two years in the committee bill to five years. Senator Bible set no limitation on the amount of land that could be studied or withdrawn. As mentioned, he included only two conservation systems—the National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System. [63]
There were only a handful of senators on the floor when Senator Bible introduced his amendment. It did not prove to be controversial and was not the subject of considerable debate, save a short "collaquy" between Bible and Senator Stevens of Alaska who allowed, somewhat unhappily, that "if I had my druthers, I would not have them in the bill." Nevertheless, Senator Stevens did not oppose the amendment, and it passed by voice vote. Following, the Senate passed its version of the Alaska Native claims settlement bill by a vote of 76-5. [64]
Differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill would be worked out in a conference committee. The problem facing the conferees regarding the national interest lands was reconciling the language of the provisions authored by Representative Kyl and Senator Bible. Concern over the national interest, however, was not something that bulked large in the conference. The conferees met nine times between November 30 and December 13. The question of conservation lands did not come up, apparently, until December 9, when the conferees agreed to give the Secretary of the Interior authority to withdraw up to 80,000,000 acres for study for possible inclusion in one of the conservation systems. [65]
The conferees added the Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Forest systems to those mentioned in the Bible amendment. As indicated, George Hartzog believed that Senator Bible intended that the majority of land should have gone to the National Park System. Representatives Udall and Saylor argued that the conferees intended that only a minimum amount should go to the National Forest System. It has not been possible to uncover any evidence, however, suggesting that the conferees intended that any of the "four-systems" agencies—National Park Service, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and Forest Service—would have a priority in terms of size or selection of areas. [66]
Questions would be raised, over the next several years, regarding the addition of the National Forest Service in the conference. Inclusion of the Forest Service apparently came from several sources. Staff members of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs argued for inclusion of a multiple-use agency in the bill, despite conservationists' arguments to the contrary; staff members of the Federal Field Committee worked for inclusion of the Forest Service hoping that it could be used to convince the Forest Service to release the 400,000 acres provided for community expansion in the Statehood Act in return; and the Udall-Saylor amendment that failed passage in the house provided for additions to the Forest System, although the authors of that amendment did not intend that the Forest Service would be an equal partner. Finally, Ted Stevens, Alaska's senior senator, who was one of the most active and influential members of the conference, insisted on inclusion of that system in an effort, he later said, to include a multiple-use agency that would not "lock up any lands that they might get." [67]
Chapter Two continues . . .
Top
Last Modified: Tues, Jan 9 2001 10:08 am PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/williss/adhi2c-1.htm
.gif){kind=small}