[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 39, ARCTIC COASTAL PLAIN DOMESTIC ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2003;
AND H.R. 770, MORRIS K. UDALL ARCTIC WILDERNESS ACT
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Saturday, April 5, 2003 in Kaktovik, Alaska
__________
Serial No. 108-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
86-329 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 5, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 9
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska 9
Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 8
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Letter to Representatives Markey and Johnson submitted
for the record......................................... 83
Rehberg, Hon. Dennis R., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Montana....................................... 7
Renzi, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Ahmaogak, Hon. George, Mayor, North Slope Borough............ 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 72
Aishanna, Hon. Herman, City Council Member and Former Mayor,
Kaktovik, Alaska........................................... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Akootchook, Reverend Isaac, President, Kaktovik Native
Village, Kaktovik, Alaska.................................. 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Kaleak, George, Sr., Whaling Co-Captain and Member, Native
Village of Kaktovik Council................................ 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Miller, Deborah, Author, Fairbanks, Alaska................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Murkowski, Hon. Frank, Governor, State of Alaska............. 2
Sonsalla, Hon. Lon, Mayor, Kaktovik, Alaska.................. 2
Tagarook, Hon. George, City Council Member and Former Mayor,
Kaktovik, Alaska........................................... 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Thompson, Robert, Resident, Kaktovik, Alaska................. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
VanHatten, Morgan, Student, Kaveolook School, Kaktovik,
Alaska..................................................... 54
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Additional materials supplied:
Glenn. Richard, Vice President of Lands, Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation, Statement submitted for the record... 69
Markey, Hon. Edward and Hon. Nancy Johnson, Letter to Hon.
Richard Pombo submitted for the record..................... 81
Rexford, Fenton O., President, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 66
Solomon, Jonathon, Chairman, Gwich'in Steering Committee,
Fairbanks, Alaska, Statement submitted for the record...... 18
LEGISLATIVE FIELD HEARING ON H.R. 39, ARCTIC COASTAL PLAIN DOMESTIC
ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2003; & H.R. 770, MORRIS K. UDALL ARCTIC
WILDERNESS ACT
----------
Saturday, April 5, 2003
Committee on Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Kaktovik, Alaska
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:43 a.m., in the
Kaktovik City Center Office, Kaktovik, Alaska, Hon. Richard
Pombo (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Members Present: Representatives Pombo, Nunes, Renzi,
Rehberg, and Bordallo.
Also Present: Senator Lisa Murkowski, Governor Frank
Murkowski, Mayor Lon Sonsalla, Mayor George Ahmaogak.
Mayor Sonsalla. Maybe I don't need the mike. I think
everybody can hear me anyways. So I'd like to welcome
everybody. We're going to get started here. So find you a
chair. Relax.
This is the official hearing of the House Resources
Committee. I would like to welcome all the guests we have
today. The Committee members. I'll let them introduce
themselves when they get started on the hearing part of that
because I don't remember all their names.
And we also have Governor Murkowski here. And--right there.
Mayor Ahmaogak from the North Slope Borough is here.
Of course, I want to welcome all the elders and the people
of Kaktovik. And thank you for coming today. As is our
tradition, we usually start off the meeting with an invocation.
I would like to ask the Reverend Isaac Akootchook if he could
do that for us.
Mr. Akootchook. Hello. Say, I am Inupiat Eskimo. I speak in
Eskimo. Every time I speak in a prayer to the Lord I would use
my language because it will never away because God is all
things in Inupiat person, and that's what I gonna speak it in.
And that way I'll explain it.
God is never misunderstanding. In a lot of languages they
have, all of us always understand it. English is always talk
about it together. God is always perfect, not us. You know. All
of us got to help one another. Let us pray.
(Invocation given in Native language.).
Mayor Sonsalla. I would like to ask Desiree to lead us off
in the Pledge of Allegiance. Desiree.
[pledge of allegiance recited.]
STATEMENT OF HON. LON SONSALLA, MAYOR,
KAKTOVIK, ALASKA
Mayor Sonsalla. I just have a few things before we get into
the official part of the testimony.
I would like to remind everyone that we need to remember
our young men and women that are in the military. And we have a
couple of young men from Kaktovik here that are in the Armed
Forces and we need to keep them in mind as we are in this
meeting today.
Of course, we believe that this hearing is being held in
Kaktovik to hear the voices of Kaktovik. We are the ones that
are nearest and dearest to the refuge on a year-around basis.
This land and these animals that occupy it mean everything to
us. They define us. We don't leave the humans out of the
picture.
People have been living here way before this became the
state of Alaska and way before the military showed up and took
some land from people that were living here and installed radar
installations along the north coast. And way before this place
was declared a wildlife range.
And also people have been here way before this was a
wildlife refuge. And we need to keep that in mind.
This is why we are glad you're here today, to consult with
us about the proposal to declare the coastal plain a wilderness
and another proposal, another bill to open the coastal plain to
responsible development.
Survival of people of Kaktovik is of primary importance,
which is why we've always said if anything happens here within
our homelands, we want to be involved in the process.
And also next I would like to introduce Governor Frank
Murkowski, who we would like to have welcome the crowd here
today.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR,
STATE OF ALASKA
Governor Frank Murkowski. Thank you. Let me acknowledge the
elders. On behalf of all Alaskans, we thank you for the
opportunity to appear and make a statement relative to the
important events at hand.
Let me also thank the group that has flown up here. I
recognize that this is a very difficult turnaround in a
weekend, but as head of the Committee on Resources in the
House, why, as you know, you have to make the best
circumstances with the availability of your time.
I can't think of time more well spent traveling roughly
6,000 miles to come to about as far north as you can come
without falling off the top in North America, and expressing,
if you will, an open ear and an objectivity of the people of
this area, the North Slope Borough and the community of
Kaktovik.
As Chairman of the Committee, why, you have, I think, the
responsibility of listening to the residents, getting their
views. And we're most appreciative of you and the other members
of your Committee from California, Arizona, Guam.
And I'm very pleased to see Lisa here. We have a
relationship, as you know. And I don't get to see her very
often anymore. So Lisa, it's nice to see you, and I trust you
will have some advice and counsel for me, as well.
I'm somewhat disappointed that one member of the Committee
isn't here, Representative Markey, who has made much to do
about activities on the North Slope. And I hope that he has an
opportunity and takes the time to read the record of this
hearing because it's very important.
What we have here is the opportunity to listen to the
people of Kaktovik and the North Slope Borough. And the borough
mayor, my good friend, who is going to be talking to me about
some issues affecting the life-style of residents in the
borough a little later.
But you're going to have an opportunity to hear firsthand
that the people of this area strongly support the responsible
development in the coastal plain of ANWR. I'm sure there are
others who will express their views, as well, and we welcome
that as part of the democratic process.
But again, I commend your Committee on your overwhelming
vote, which you took last week, to include ANWR in the
comprehensive energy legislation that's now being formulated in
the House of Representatives. I think it's much to your credit
that even after the vote, you made a commitment to come up
here, you've lived by that commitment.
I think your vote shows that a large portion of the
Committee understands the importance of responsible oil and gas
development in Alaska and the contribution it makes to the
nation, as well. So I'm not going to belabor that issue here.
However, I don't think we can overlook the reality that as
we look to the benefits of securing domestic resources of oil
in our nation and the recognition that at this time,
coincidentally, we're at war in the Persian Gulf, and much of
that war is over oil.
We don't have to look back very many years to remember
Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait. We don't have to reflect
very long in the recognition that since that time, we have been
maintaining a no-fly zone over Iraq until we went into this
conflict.
Yet at the same time, we were still buying oil from Saddam
Hussein. Almost to the insidious, if you will, reflection that
we buy oil, put it in our airplanes, and then go take out his
targets. So clearly, it's in the national interest of this
country to reduce its dependence on areas such as Iraq.
I think it's important to note that as we look at
development of oil in Alaska, you might not like oil fields,
but Prudhoe Bay is the best oil field in the world, and it's
nearly 35-year-old technology. We've advanced that into
Endicott where we brought in the tenth largest producing field
almost 19 years ago, and the footprint was 56 acres.
Now, we have, as you will see, and the opportunity you will
have while you're visiting here, to get a little framework on
the size of Alaska. And I am pleased that we don't have any
Texans with us, although some may have been born in Texas, I
have to be a little careful, but we're about two and a half
times the size of Texas.
And as a consequence, the relative significance of
developing the bill that came out of the House of 2,000 acres
out of 19-million acres is a reference and dimension that I
think bears some reflection.
The reality is when you're looking for oil, you want to
look where you're most likely to find it, and geologists tell
us that we're most likely to find it in this area of ANWR. It's
the most promising unexplored petroleum province on the
continent, and the one with the potential of perhaps
discovering another large oil field such as Prudhoe Bay.
On this trip you're going to see for yourselves a small
footprint of oil development on the Slope is just that, very
small in relationship to the whole.
The sign that you saw when you came in here was evidence of
jurisdiction where, indeed, the Department of Interior has
control of the 1002 area, the ANWR area, and as a consequence,
the State of Alaska has a certain sovereign obligation to
manage this land, as well.
And we had commitments, as Senator Stevens has mentioned
time and time again, that the people of Alaska would have a
major voice in the determination of whether or not ANWR would
be open. And that process is still going on today.
I think it's fair to say that as we look at the
responsibility that we have to maintain our wildlife
populations that they have been pretty much unaffected by the
oil exploration development which has occurred here in Alaska
to date.
I'm very pleased that you got into Valdez. I was somewhat
concerned because I've taken five congressional delegations up
here over the last 22 years, and you're the first one that ever
got into Valdez on the first try. Most of them had flown up and
simply decided to abandon it and go someplace else.
So when I had planned these trips, why, I planned to fly
into Cordova and then take a smaller airplane and get them out
of Valdez. But some have said the stars are aligned, and I
think there's some truth to that.
But if you look at Valdez, you'll find the finest oil port
in the world. It's the only oil port in the world that has a
vapor recovery system when the oil is being loaded on those
tankers.
And you saw for yourself the extent of the effort to try
and insure that an accident such as the Exxon Valdez could not
happen again, or at least the risk is minimized by the
tremendous capability and readiness that's in existence there.
As you will observe when you see the pipeline, you know,
we've got 800 miles of pipeline that's been one of the
construction wonders of the world. It's survived earthquakes,
it's survived bombings, it's been shot at, and it does survive.
And it moves, of course, at one time nearly 25 percent of the
total domestic crude oil produced in Alaska.
So on behalf of Alaskans, I want to thank you for coming.
Our experience has been that when Members of Congress come to
our state, see the North Slope, but more importantly, meet the
people, the real people of the North Slope, they almost always
conclude that oil development, gas development, and
transportation can occur safely.
And my hope is that these realities will become known to
more, the partisan politics as we've seen it will pass on this
issue, and that Congress will make the important step of
passing this comprehensive energy legislation that includes
ANWR for the benefit of our nation, as well as our state.
And as we look at the recognition of how long this issue
has been with us, and the identification of the advanced
technology that has occurred, why, I think it's fair to say the
question of safety, the question of oversight, the question of
our ability as a state to monitor the responsibility we have in
working with the Federal agencies on the jurisdiction of the
development of this area, and the recognition that the people
themselves support.
You know, I can speak for all residents of Alaska in the
recognition that Alaskans in rural areas of our state are
entitled to the same benefits that you take for granted in your
home state. Whether it's basic comforts: Sewer, water
facilities, educational opportunities, and the resources
provide opportunities, jobs, a better life-style, and a better
future for the children that you see in this audience, the
beautiful Eskimo children that are looking for a future, as
well. And there goes one of them right now.
So as we look at the future of our state and the
recognition that, to a large degree, the future of our state is
tied into responsible resource development, the further
recognition that our nation needs these resources.
And, you know, one of the things that is noteworthy that
some of our friends from Washington occasionally forget is you
don't move in and out of Washington on hot air. That was fuel
that flew you in today, and fuel that's going to fly you back.
And as we look at the alternatives to energy, we have lots
of alternatives, but America and the world moves on oil. We
have yet to develop another alternative. I hope that we can
someday.
But in the meantime, emerging nations are going to require
more oil, more oil is going to be required to move people
throughout the world. And the question is, do we want to rely
on sources such as Iraq, Iran, or other nations that have no
stability and clearly threaten, if you will, to raise prices to
a level that oftentimes can affect the standard of living here
in our nation? I think the answers are obvious.
So I want to thank all of you for attending today, and I
look forward to carrying a message back to my cabinet, the
Legislature, both the House and Senate, of the findings of this
hearing today. And again, we're most appreciative of your
visit. So I'll pick up my pen and leave the podium. Thank you.
Mayor Sonsalla. Thank you, Governor Murkowski. And with
that, I'll turn the hearing over to Chairman Pombo.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The hearing will come
to order.
Today the Committee is holding a hearing on H.R. 39, a bill
to authorize environmentally sensitive oil and gas leasing on
the coastal plain of ANWR, and on H.R. 770, a bill to make the
coastal plain a wilderness area.
Under the rules of the Committee, the Chairman is entitled
to make an opening statement, but I will also allow other
members of the Committee to make statements if they so wish.
Witnesses will have 5 minutes to make an oral statement.
After they are finished, each member of the Committee will have
5 minutes to ask questions and receive answers to the--from the
witnesses.
Let me remind the witnesses that their entire written
testimony will be included in the record and will become part
of the official hearing. If you can limit your oral testimony
to 5 minutes, which will also be included in the record, that
will help us to keep on time with the Committee hearing here
today.
I want to thank the Mayor, the Governor, for welcoming us
to Kaktovik, to the people who live here for allowing us to
come in and showing up for the hearing.
We have spent a great deal of time and many years
discussing, arguing, debating the merits of ANWR oil and gas
development, what should happen with this area. Since in the 10
years that I've been a member of the House of Representatives,
we've had countless numbers of hearings and debates and bills
on taking both sides of the issue that have been introduced.
And I have had the opportunity several years ago to come up
here. It was a little bit warmer when I was here, but had the
opportunity to come up here and spend a little bit of time
getting around, finding out for myself what was here and what
the risks were, what the opportunities were, and came to the
conclusion that we could safely go in and explore and look for
what oil resources were here.
Some of the other members of the Committee have not had
that opportunity before, and I made the commitment when I
became Chairman of this Committee that we were going to spend
more time getting out of Washington, getting the members out to
actually meet with people and talk to them, see things for
themselves, and make up their own minds about what they
thought.
Early on in this process this year, I made the decision
that we were going to come up here and bring as many members as
who wanted to go up here and give them the opportunity to see
this for themselves.
I wanted to again thank the Governor for being here. I know
that he has an extremely busy schedule, and having the
opportunity to have him be here and be part of this hearing
process is important, not only to the people of Alaska, but to
the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate who
are here to have the Governor take such an active interest in
what we're doing.
I would also like to thank Ms. Drue Pearce, who is with the
Department of Interior, who came in today, as well, to be with
us; Mr. Mike Smith, who is the Assistant Secretary of Energy is
also with us today; and the Director of Fish & Wildlife, Mr.
Steve Williams, is also here.
I can tell you that I've had very few field hearings
anywhere in the country I've gone where the Governor showed up,
let alone one in such a remote location, and I can't remember
the last time I had so many high level members of the
Administration who attended a field hearing such as this. So
this is a good start, a good day for us to have this hearing.
So having said that, I would like to ask the other members
of the Committee if they have an opening statement they would
like to make at this time. Mr. Rehberg.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DENNIS REHBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Denny Rehberg and
I represent the entire state of Montana in the U.S. Congress,
so our state is much like yours.
I appreciate the Governor mentioning the fact that what is
of interest to his administration, and I believe to those of us
in Congress, is building a more secure future for the people of
America, and specifically, for your community and your state
because I represent a rural state much like yours.
To the mayor, thank you for being here; and Chairman Pombo,
thank you for putting this together.
This is my first trip here, although as Lieutenant Governor
of Montana in 1994, I traveled to Prudhoe Bay and always
believed that the Federal Government seems to think that the
sun rises and sets on the Potomac. They write laws that are not
always unique nor specific to the character of a community.
And so I take the time to come up here. I'm a strong
advocate of exploration here and a strong advocate of an energy
policy. Shame on those politicians that have been in Washington
for as long as they have with the energy crisis that is being
created in this country.
Because ultimately, the day will come when we will not be
able to fulfill the energy needs of this country if we don't
have a well-rounded energy policy. We are creating an energy
debt for future generations. We have to look at a well-rounded
energy policy.
So it's my pleasure to be here. I thank you all for showing
up and giving us your input.
And Chairman Pombo, again, thanks for giving me the
opportunity to be on your trip.
The Chairman. Mr. Renzi.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICK RENZI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Renzi. Thank you Chairman.
My name is Rick Renzi from Flagstaff, Arizona. I want to
thank you so very much for your hospitality for allowing us to
come to your beautiful town.
I am fortunate enough to be on this Committee with Chairman
Pombo. This is the second time we've had a field hearing in
less than a month. Chairman Pombo was kind enough to come out
to Flagstaff, Arizona, where we have one of the largest stand
of Ponderosa pine trees in America and we went through and
looked at the needs of that community as it relates to
controlling fire.
So it's a privilege to be with you here and now learning
about and discussing the issues as it relates to the
possibility of drilling here at the Refuge.
I want you to know that I've come here very much with an
open mind. We've had a chance to learn and understand a lot of
the facts, and I've listened to a lot of the witnesses in
Washington D.C. There will be a vote probably next week or the
week after on this bill.
I also want you to know I very much love the language that
our Chairman has inserted in this bill. And I just take a
moment to read one piece of it to you: In that anything we do,
we must do together. Anything that we do with you, must be in
harmony and a holistic approach with the land.
Section 3 of H.R. 39 requires the secretary to insure that
oil and gas explorations development and production activities
on the Coastal Plains will result--not ``may'' result, but
``will'' result in no significant adverse effect on Fish &
Wildlife in their habitat. Including the substantial resources
that they need in order to survive.
This is the highest legal standard that we can impose in
any law. We're giving you the protection, we're giving you the
words, we're giving you the legal protection to now work with
us and make sure that any of the gas or oil companies that come
in here must use the highest available commercial technology
available, must use the best technology, and they must leave
the land as they found it.
These are the three pillars of this legislation. Working
with you, leaving the land as they found it, no impact on the
wildlife. And so there are no greater, higher standards from a
legal standpoint, to begin with, than from this point.
And so I want to thank the Chairman for inserting that
language. It truly is a historic point to begin from, and I
look forward to the testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Renzi. Mr. Nunes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEVIN NUNES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Devin Nunes.
I am from the Central San Joaquin Valley of California. It's a
pleasure to be here on my first trip to Alaska. It's pretty
warm outside in comparison to California. If the wind was
blowing a little bit more, it might be a little colder. But I
am enjoying it.
And I want to thank the Governor, the Senator, all the
local elected officials and the community folks who have showed
up here today to give testimony so that we can go back to
Washington and relay your messages to the of the U.S. Congress.
I hope from gathering this testimony today we will be
successful next week in passing this much needed legislation on
the floor of the House.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for preparing this trip for
us, and I look forward to the testimony.
The Chairman. Ms. Bordallo.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MADELEINE BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Governor,
and Mayor, and people of this region. I want to thank the
Chairman for inviting me on this trip as it has been a real
education for me.
I represent the territory of Guam. It's a small island in
the Pacific where the temperatures range from 75 to 95 the year
around. So this is just about as cold and as opposite to my
living conditions as anyone here on the panel.
But I have been enthralled with the beauty of your state. I
just--it's awesome. And I will always remember this. And I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity.
I think what's important here is the Chairman has called
the residents together. And in any legislation that is ever
passed, it's important that you get the input from the
residents.
And the other point I want to make is that there has come a
time now when we are currently in the midst of a war, and this
war, the root of it, is over oil. And I think that it's time
that we look at our own resources and begin to develop them.
And that's why we're here today. As long as it's done
environmentally safe for everyone in the region.
So that's one thing, Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased that
you did call the residents together because it's important that
we get your input, as well. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. And thank you.
We also have with us the Senator who represents this state
in the U.S. Congress, Senator Murkowski, and I would like to
ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to sit on the dais
and participate in this hearing today. Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
Senator, if you would like to make an opening statement, I
would recognize you at this time.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Chairman Pombo. And thank you
for allowing me the privilege to be with you on this trip, to
come back to my home state, even if just for literally a few
hours.
It's important for me to be here to listen to the people of
Kaktovik. I've not had the opportunity to meet a lot of you,
and so for me to be here today, to hear and to understand, to
listen, is critical, as I am back in Washington, D.C. to
represent you.
So Mr. Chairman, I will probably be relatively quiet during
this panel this afternoon because I do want to hear the
comments from the people of Kaktovik. I would like to have the
opportunity afterwards to talk to you individually, if you
would like to give me your input there.
But what is happening back in Washington as it relates to
your area, your community, is very, very significant. And it is
important that we have this communication, that I can go back
an stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and tell the people
that I'm speaking to, my colleagues, how critical, how
important, and what it means to you, the residents, to have
ANWR, to have it, the 1002 coastal plain open and available for
drilling.
So I'm here to listen. I appreciate the hospitality from
all.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and Mayor Ahmaogak, thank you for
making this available to us today. I look forward to comments.
The Chairman. Thank you. I would like to invite our first
panel to come sit. Ms. Debbie Williams, and Mr. Robert
Thompson, if you would join us at the witness table. If you
would just remain standing briefly.
It is the policy of the Committee to swear in all
witnesses, so I would ask you to stand and raise your right
hand.
[witnesses sworn.]
The Chairman. Let the record show that they both answered
in the affirmative.
If I may, could the other gentleman identify himself for
the record?
Ms. Miller. Yes. Can you hear me on this?
The Chairman. We can hear you.
Ms. Miller. This is Richard Fineberg from Fairbanks, and he
has come up to assist me with showing some photographs for the
Committee.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Fineberg will not be testifying? He's
just sitting there?
Ms. Miller. No. Just helping me.
The Chairman. All right. As I said in the opening, we are--
the oral testimony is limited to 5 minutes. Your entire written
testimony will be included in the record.
And I see that you both have submitted written testimony.
That will be included in the record in its entirety.
The lights in front of you here will guide you as far as
the timing. The green light is on during your presentation, the
yellow light comes on when to sum up your presentation, you
have a minute remaining when the yellow light comes on, then
the red light comes on, if you could finish at that point.
Welcome to the hearing. I'm going to start with Ms.
Williams, I believe.
Ms. Miller. Actually, my name is Debbie Miller.
Mr. Fluhr. I apologize.
Ms. Miller. There is a Deborah Williams. Sorry for the
confusion.
The Chairman. I apologize for that.
Ms. Miller. If I can ask the Chairman, since I am the only
person testifying today that is not a resident of Kaktovik, I
live in Fairbanks, I think it's more appropriate that you hear
from Robert Thompson, who does live in Kaktovik, as a courtesy.
Is that--
The Chairman. Yeah. I can--I can start with Mr. Thompson.
That's fine. I have no problem with that.
Ms. Miller. Just a courtesy, I'm not a resident here, and
you've just said you want to hear from the residents, so--
The Chairman. We will start with you then, Mr. Thompson.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT THOMPSON, RESIDENT OF KAKTOVIK, ALASKA
Mr. Thompson OK. My name is Robert Thompson, I'm a resident
of Kaktovik. I first came to Kaktovik 30 years ago and I have
lived here the past 15 years. I've hunted the area under
consideration, and I've traveled extensively throughout the
1002 area while doing the activity I do for a living, which is
wilderness guiding.
I recently guided a photographer, Subhankar Banerjee, while
he collected photographs for his book--you have copies here--
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Seasons of Life. It's a photo
essay about the refuge.
I'm very much opposed to H.R. 39 and support of H.R. 770
for the following reasons: Oil development will cause
irreparable damage to the culture of my people, for now and the
future generations.
The 1002 area of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was set
aside for evaluation as to whether or not it could be used for
oil exploration without degradation to the environment.
Geological reports indicate that the potential oil deposits
within the general area are scattered, possibly over the whole
area from the Canning River to the Aichilik.
Directional drilling has been cited to be the answer. Small
footprints, forces state. This is true at Prudhoe Bay where the
oil is in large pools. However, where these pools are many and
scattered, this will have little beneficial effect. It is
estimated that 350 miles of pipe or more would be needed. It's
not a small footprint.
The supporters of drilling cite new technology, ice roads.
If ice roads are used, there are large areas of the Refuge
where water is not available to construct these.
The Environmental Impact Statement produced in 1987 is
outdated. The effects relating to global warming are not
considered. Cumulative effects are not considered to the
environment and to the people. The noise pollution, due to
increased use of aircraft, is not considered. I've heard
helicopters from as far as 40 miles away.
The recent effect relating to global warming to the musk-
ox, caribou, and polar bears are not considered. These effects
are quite dramatic. There are approximately 50,000 less caribou
now than there were several years ago. There's 300 less musk-
ox. I think we are down to about 27 musk-ox. Polar bears must
remain on the land for longer periods at a time due to less ice
in the global warming.
Mention is made of attention to the environmental concerns
during the exploratory phase; however, no safeguards are in
place for the production phase. If adverse effects to animals
are observed once production is started, the infrastructure
will not be removed.
This is my opinion and has concurrence in a report
requested by Republican Supporters of Drilling the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. The requested report was produced by
the National Research Council.
The mayor of the North Slope Borough, George Ahmaogak, has
expressed adverse concerns relating to oil development. I have
got an attachment.
In his statement before the National Research Committee,
Mr. Ahmaogak stated, our people have seen access to traditional
subsistence hunting areas reduced, the behavior and migratory
patterns of key subsistence species has changed, increased
incidence of cancer and other serious health ailments,
disruption of traditional social systems, and vastly increased
requirements in time, effort, and funding to meaningfully
consider and respond to the ever multiplying number of projects
proposed in our back yards.
It is important to a lot of people that there are
undisturbed places left in the world. There are a lot of parks
and undisturbed areas in Alaska; however, the 1002, along with
the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is the only arctic
ecosystem with a complete range of arctic habitats and wildlife
that will be considered to be safe for future generations.
The Congressional Delegation of Alaska has led people to
believe that the pipeline is in danger of running out of oil to
keep it operational. They say it is only half full. The
pipeline permit was recently renewed for 30 more years. Prior
to the renewal, it was determined that there is a 30-year
supply at the present, or even higher rate of production.
West Sak alone has possibly as much as 60 billion barrels.
It is generally accepted that there are 14 billion barrels. The
oil companies have stated in public ads that they have
developed technology to recover this.
I heard the supporters of drilling call our land a
moonscape and say it is a white sheet of paper, like a white
sheet of paper 9 months of the year, and call it good-for-
nothing land. They just say the land is good only for oil
drilling.
To them it may be that, but to me and the majority of
Americans, it has intrinsic value, value that cannot be
replaced by money. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. Our
culture is tied to the land. I am in favor of wilderness
designation.
With wilderness designation, we will be sure of the ability
to continue our traditional activities as provided in ANILCA.
If an oil field is allowed to be put in the wildlife refuge,
the cultural thread will be broken, there will be many areas
where we will not be allowed to hunt, and possibly not even to
access. If an oil field is there, we would not want to hunt
there if allowed.
It is my sincere wish that the area remain as it is in a
wildlife refuge with wilderness status for future generations
to enjoy and to be able to continue our culture. The seventh
generation in the future should have what we enjoy.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Statement of Robert Thompson, Kaktovik, Alaska
My name is Robert Thompson. I'm a resident of Kaktovik. I first
came to Kaktovik 30 years ago and have lived here for the past 15
years. I hunt in the area under consideration and have traveled
extensively throughout the 1002 area while doing the activity I do for
a living, wilderness guiding. I recently a photographer, Subhankar
Banerjee while he collected photographs for his book ``Arctic National
Wildlife: Seasons of Life and Land,'' a photo essay publication about
the refuge.
I am very much opposed to H.R. 39 and in support of H.R. 770 for
the following reasons: Oil development will cause irreparable damage to
the culture of my people for now and for future generations.
The 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was set aside
for evaluation as to whether or not it could be used for oil
exploration without degradation to the environment. Geological reports
indicate that potential oil deposits within the 1002 area are scattered
possibly over the whole area from the Canning River to the Aichilik.
Directional drilling has been cited as to the answer, a small foot
print the pro-drilling forces state. This is true at Prudhoe Bay where
the oil is in large pools, however where the pools are many and
scattered, this will have little beneficial effect. It is estimated
that 350 miles of pipe, or more, will be needed. This is not a small
footprint. The supporters of drilling cite new technology, ice roads.
If ice roads are used there are large areas of the refuge where water
is not available.
The environmental impact statement produced in 1987 is outdated.
Effects relating to global warming are not considered. Cumulative
effects are not considered to the environment and to people. The noise
pollution due to increased use of aircraft is not considered. I have
heard helicopters from 40 miles away.
The recent effects relating to global warming on the musk-ox,
caribou and polar bears are not considered. These effects are quite
dramatic. There are approximately 50,000 less caribou, 300 less musk-
oxen, and polar bears that must remain on land for longer periods of
time due to less ice because of global warming. Mention is made of
attention to environmental concerns during the exploratory phase,
however no safeguards are in place for production. If adverse effects
to animals are observed once production has started, the infrastructure
will not be removed.
This is my opinion and has concurrence in a report requested by
Republican supporters of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. The requested report was produced by the National Research
Council. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council. Cumulative Environmental Effects of
Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope. March 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mayor of the North Slope Borough, George Ahmaogak, has
expressed adverse concerns relating to oil development (see
attachment). In his statement before the National Research Committee
Mr. Ahmaogak stated:
``Our people have seen access to traditional subsistence
hunting areas reduced, the behavior and migratory patterns of
key subsistence species changed, increased incidence of cancers
and other serious health ailments, disruption of traditional
social systems, and vastly increased requirements in time,
effort, and funding to meaningfully consider and respond to the
ever-multiplying number of projects proposed in their own
backyards.''
It is important to a lot of people to know that there are
undisturbed places left in the world. There are a lot of parks and
undisturbed areas in Alaska, however the 1002 area along with the
entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the only Arctic ecosystem,
with a complete range of arctic habitats and wildlife, that will be
considered to be saved for future generations.
The Congressional delegation of Alaska has led people to believe
that the pipeline is in danger of running out of oil to keep it
operational, they say it is only half full. The pipeline permit was
recently renewed for 30 more years. Prior to the renewal it was
determined that there is a 30-year supply at the present or even higher
rate of production. West Sak alone has possibly as much as 60 billion
barrels--it is generally accepted that there are 14 billion barrels.
The oil companies have stated in public ads that they have developed
technology to recover this.
I have heard the supporters of drilling call our land a moonscape
and say it is like a white sheet of paper 9 months of the year and call
it a good for nothing land, good only for oil drilling. To them it may
be that, but to me and the majority of Americans it has intrinsic
value, value that cannot be replaced by money. Once it is gone, it is
gone forever. Our culture is tied to the land. I am in favor of
wilderness designation. With wilderness designation we will be assured
of the ability to continue our traditional activities as is provided by
ANILCA. If an oil field is allowed to be put in the wildlife refuge the
cultural thread will be broken, there will be many areas where we will
not be allowed to hunt in and possibly not even be able to access. If
an oil field is there we would not want to hunt there even if allowed.
It is my sincere wish that this area remain as it is, in a wildlife
refuge with wilderness status, for future generations to enjoy and to
be able to continue our culture. The seventh generation in the future
should have what we enjoy.
Statement of the North Slope Borough by Mayor George N. Ahmaogak, Sr.
Before the National Research Council Committee for the study of the
cumulative effects of Alaskan North Slope oil and gas activities.
January 8, 2001
Excerpts
Impacts
(p.8) ``Our people have seen access to traditional subsistence
hunting areas reduced, the behavior and migratory patterns of key
subsistence species changed, increased incidence of cancers and other
serious health ailments, disruption of traditional social systems, and
vastly increased requirements in time, effort, and funding to
meaningfully consider and respond to the ever. multiplying number of
projects proposed in their own backyards.''
(p. 10) ``Our residents will tell you that anxiety over increasing
offshore and onshore oil and gas activity is widespread in North Slope
communities. Hunters worry about not being able to provide for their
families or the added risk and expense of doing so if game is more
difficult to find and harvest.
(p. 15) ``The people, wildlife and environment of the North Slope
are being adversely affected by oil and gas activities.''
(p. 13) ``Our residents are increasingly concerned about the.
health of the entire arctic ecosystem, including the quality of the air
we breathe and the conditions of the animals we consume for food.
Residents of some of our communities complain of an increased incidence
of respiratory ailments, and point to a more visible ``arctic haze''
with alarm. Subsistence foods show increasing concentrations of heavy
metals and other toxins. A warming climate has already reduced the use
of ice cellars dug into the permafrost for food storage in some
communities, and may affect the populations of some arctic species.
(p. 13) ``On land, our primary concerns is the displacement of
wildlife, especially caribou and waterfowl, from key habitat areas as
industrial facilities expand in all directions from the core complex at
Prudhoe Bay/Kuparuk. We are also concerned with restrictions on the
free movement of wildlife to feeding, nesting, brooding, molting,
insect relief, and other essential areas resulting from the ever-
expanding web of pipelines, roads, and other facilities. We recognize
that the increased use of ice roads and ice drilling pads [for
exploration] minimizes impacts to the tundra. We also have a growing
concern, however, regarding the dramatically escalating use of fresh
water from lakes and rivers which provide essential habitat for
important subsistence and other fish species. Native allotment holders
also expressed concerns regarding restrictions on access to their
traditional hunting areas, a displacement of game from those areas, and
disruption of the ability to harvest resources within broader
traditional hunting areas around their holdings.''
(p. 13-14). ``In recent years, some community residents have
reported a decline in participation in some whaling activities
(hunting, landing, and butchering the whale). A significant factor
mentioned by some as a major cause is the socio-cultural disruption
resulting from people being worried a bout offshore activity and its
effect on the bowhead whale and the fall hunt. The Borough and the AEWC
[Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission] have asserted for several years to
the responsible agencies that community-wide stress, associated with
increasing industrial activity on the North Slope, and the barrage of
an overwhelming number of industry-related documents to review and
meetings to attend, is having on-going socio-cultural effects.''
(p. 7-8) ``The devastation that would result from a major oil spill
is something that no one wants to deal with. That of course means that
we should do all we can to prevent a spill... We have asked for years
for a realistic demonstration of the oil industry's abilities to deal
with a spill under the difficult conditions which exist offshore much
of the time in the central Beaufort Sea. We have yet to see such a
demonstration, and remain unconvinced that a significant spill could be
effectively responded to in anything but near ideal conditions.
______
[Attachments to Mr. Thompson's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6329.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6329.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6329.003
The Chairman. Ms. Miller.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH MILLER, AUTHOR,
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
Ms. Miller. Thank you. Thank you so much for coming to
Kaktovik, Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, Senator
Murkowski, welcome to your first field hearing in the Far North
as a Senator, and Governor Murkowski.
I have to turn around and I have to say this is the third
time now that I've actually testified, twice before the Senate
Energy Resources Committee in front of Senator--then Senator
Murkowski, Governor, and now it's wonderful to have you here,
as well. I am not a resident of Kaktovik and I am honored to be
here.
I used to teach school and live in Arctic Village, which is
on the southern edge of the Arctic Refuge. I'm disappointed,
actually, that you couldn't find time on this trip to visit
this village because those people directly depend on the
Porcupine caribou herd, and this is the birthplace for that
herd. It has sustained their culture for over 10,000 years,
these people that live on the border of the Arctic Refuge.
So I would urge the Committee to visit the village at some
point for a fact-finding trip to learn about their culture and
how they depend on these resources in Arctic Village.
I was asked to hand deliver testimony from the Gwich'in
Steering Committee. I would like to enter that into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included into
the record.
[The statement submitted for the record by the Gwich'in
Steering Committee follows:]
Statement of Jonathon Solomon, Chairman, Gwich'in Steering Committee,
Fairbanks, Alaska
As Chairman of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, I would like to
take this opportunity to thank the Chairman and his colleagues for
allowing me to submit the following written testimony on behalf of the
Gwich'in Nation. We urge you to visit our communities to better
understand our perspectives on this issue, and to hold an additional
field hearing there as well.
The Gwich'in Nation opposes H.R. 39, which would open the coastal
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration
and development because it threatens our way of life. We support H.R.
770, the Arctic Wilderness Act that would designate the Federal lands
of the ``1002 area'' of the Arctic Refuge as wilderness in order to
protect the subsistence resources we depend on.
To place this testimony in proper context, I will present a brief
summary of who the Gwich'in people are and why we have a vested
interest in preserving this sacred area.
The Caribou People
The Gwich'in Nation is comprised of approximately 7,000 people
residing in fifteen isolated villages throughout northeast Alaska and
northwest Canada. For thousands of generations our ancestors lived in
the areas near to what is now known as the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. Our communities have a sacred and long-standing relationship
with the local resources of this region, namely the Porcupine Caribou
Herd. The caribou have long been the principal means by which the
Gwich'in people meet our essential cultural, physical, economic,
social, and spiritual needs. In this regard, reliance on traditional
and customary use (now termed ``subsistence'') of the Porcupine Caribou
Herd is, and always has been, a matter of survival.
Gwich'in communities today continue to live a subsistence-based
lifestyle relying on traditional foods to make up roughly 70% of our
overall diet. We have a contemporary hunting culture with traditional
ties to the animals and the land. As we are one of the last indigenous
peoples in the world to maintain an intact subsistence cycle, the
Gwich'in feel we have an obligation to uphold the integrity of our
ancestral way of life. Since there is no alternative to Gwich'in
subsistence livelihood, our communities have a unified longstanding
position to protect the Porcupine Caribou, upon which our culture
depends.
In addition to the importance of the caribou to our physical well
being, the caribou is also central to Gwich'in spirituality and
traditional belief systems. According to our Creation story, the
Gwich'in originated from the caribou at the time when there was a
separation of humans and animals. We have been told that there was an
agreement between the caribou and the Gwich'in and from that time on,
``'the Gwich'in would retain a part of the caribou heart and the
caribou would retain a part of the Gwich'in heart''. This is why the
Gwich'in believe so strongly that the future of the caribou and the
future of the Gwich'in are one and the same. It is in honor of this
reciprocal relationship that Gwich'in feel we have an obligation to our
future generations to uphold the integrity of our spiritual beliefs as
well as our way of life that has been handed down from one generation
to the next. Since protecting the Porcupine Caribou Herd and their
vital habitat is inseparable from the above stated aim, our communities
are committed to seeking permanent protection for the primary
birthplace and nursery ground of the Porcupine Caribou Herd.
The Sacred Place Where Life Begins, ``Izhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit''
For millennia, the Porcupine Caribou Herd (North America's largest
international herd) has used the coastal plain as their primary calving
and nursing grounds. Each April, the Porcupine Caribou Herd migrates
over 1,400 miles across Alaska and Canada to the coastal plain where
they typically give birth to 40-50,000 calves. The coastal plain
provides an ideal environment for birthing cows as it has comparatively
fewer insects and predators than other surrounding regions. The land
within the coastal plain also offers a unique concentration of
vegetation that supplies the cows and calves with the nutrition they
need to prepare for the long migration to their wintering grounds.
In addition to being the primary birthplace and nursery for the
Porcupine Caribou Herd, the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is a
nesting area for over 135 species of migratory birds, home to 34
species of fish, a terrestrial denning area for polar bears, and a
year-round home to the prehistoric musk oxen. The Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge contains the greatest diversity of animal life of any
conservation area in the circumpolar region. The coastal plain of the
Arctic Refuge, where oil drilling has been proposed, is home to the
largest concentrations of wildlife in the Refuge. The bio-diversity of
the coastal plain is so great in fact that the Gwich'in have long
referred to the area as ``Izhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit'', The Sacred
Place Where Life Begins.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was established under the 1980
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) with the
specific purposes of conserving fish and wildlife populations
(including the Porcupine Caribou Herd) and their habitats in their
natural diversity, fulfilling international treaty obligations, and
providing for subsistence uses. Over time, Congress enacted legislation
to expand the acreage within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The following list highlights several of those noteworthy
legislative acts:
1960--President Eisenhower established the Arctic
National Wildlife Range, which included the coastal plain lands.
1980--The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) doubled the size of the Range to 19 million acres to include
most of the Porcupine Caribou Herd U.S. winter range, and renamed it
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge designating all of the original
range except the 1.5 million acre coastal plain area as wilderness.
1980--Congress mandated further studies of wildlife and
wilderness values and oil &gas potential in what became known as the
1002 area for the section of law requiring them. But Congress
explicitly prohibited oil and gas leasing and development in the
coastal plain at that time.
Proposed oil development is contrary to the fundamental purposes of
for which the Arctic Refuge was created.
ANCSA & its Relation to the Oil Industry
The discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968 established an
alignment of the oil companies and the Federal Government to promote
their combined economic interests. This alliance provoked an urgency to
settle the land claims in Alaska in order to provide a right of way for
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to access our land's resources. Consequently,
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) was enacted and
most Native lands became the ``corporate assets'' of the newly created
for-profit Native Regional and Village corporations. Two Gwich'in
villages, Arctic Village and Venetie, were among the few Alaska Native
villages that opted out of ANCSA and chose to keep title to their
lands.
The lasting effect of ANCSA has been to fundamentally alter the
ways in which Alaskan Natives relate to the land as well as how they
relate to one another. By artificially dividing Alaskan Native groups
and establishing these for-profit corporations, many Native signatories
to ANCSA were compelled to give multinational companies access to their
lands in order to merely keep their corporations afloat. Generating
profit quickly became a principal objective for most Native
Corporations, including the Arctic North Slope Regional Corporation
(ASRC) which is the corporation that represents the Inupiat people of
the North Slope. Within the past few decades, the ASRC has leased much
of their lands to oil companies and have benefitted tremendously from
the profits derived from oil revenues. A primarily marine-based
culture, the Inupiat have less to lose if on-shore development
adversely affects the local wildlife and lands.
Though there is a major difference in the position of the Gwich'in
Nation and the Inupiat Corporations regarding oil development in the
coastal plain, our Elders advised us long ago to always respect our
neighbors to the north regardless of their political stance on this
issue. Our Elders directed us to approach our campaign ``in a good
way'' and therefore we make the effort to conduct ourselves in a
respectful manner when we discuss the difference of opinion between the
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and the
Gwich'in Nation. We honor the fact that the relations between the
Inupiat and the Gwich'in extend back thousands of generations as our
ancestors were once close trading partners. Our people want to continue
to maintain good relations with the people of Kaktovik and one way we
feel we can accomplish this is by supporting them in their opposition
to off-shore development. We recognize the fact that the mighty bowhead
whale symbolizes the Inupiat way of life, and therefore we take the
position that offshore development poses similarly avoidable threats to
the marine wildlife and the Inupiat culture.
Much like the Inupiat, the Gwich'in have the inherent right to
continue our cultural way of life, and this right is recognized and
affirmed by civilized nations in the international covenants on human
rights. Article 1 of both the International Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights reads in part:
``...In no case may a people be deprived of their own means of
subsistence.''
Recent efforts to expand oil and gas development into the coastal
plain pose a considerable threat to the future health and productivity
of the Porcupine Caribou Herd. The Gwich'in Nation feels that as an
indigenous group that has lived here for thousands of years, we
understand that there are some places and times where the animals must
not be disturbed. The most important of these areas is the caribou
birthplace and nursery grounds. This place was set aside by the Creator
as a place that brings forth life and as such, it deserves to be
respected as a sacred place. Our Elders have known this for generations
and we have traditional laws against disturbing birthplaces, spawning
areas, nesting areas and denning areas. To the Gwich'in, the Arctic
Refuge represents a spiritual umbilical cord for the animals that
depend upon it to drop their young. In an effort to honor and uphold
the wisdom of our ancient spiritual laws, the Gwich'in have pressed to
obtain broader recognition of our cultural and spiritual rights. We are
supported in this effort by many organizations including the House of
Bishops and the Episcopal Diocese of Alaska.
``This issue is so important to the Church because it is both
an environmental issue and a human rights issue. Oil
exploration threatens both the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
and the Gwich'in People. We cannot accept development at the
expense of the Refuge and the Gwich'in. In this regard, this
Porcupine Caribou Herd is to our generation what the Buffalo
was to an earlier generation: Will greed triumph over our
deepest values as a people. Will we trade our values and 100
years of moral development for a few days of profit? Our
heritage of faith, freedom, and fairness demand more. We must
stand with the Gwich'in against oil development.''
--Bishop Mark McDonald, Episcopal Diocese of Alaska
Gwich'in Nation Takes a Stand
In 1988, the increasing threat of proposed oil development on the
coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge led our Elders to
call on the Chiefs to hold a traditional gathering Gwich'in Niintsyaa,
to discuss this threat and make a decision for the future of our
Nation. The Gwich'in Niintsyaa, which was held in Arctic Village, was
the first reunification of the Gwich'in Nation in over a century. We
addressed the issue in our traditional way and agreed unanimously to
speak with one voice in opposing oil development on the coastal plain
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Our Elders advised us to adopt
this political position and work to educate the public and decision-
makers of the reasons this sacred area must be protected.
The Gwich'in have therefore resolved to press the United States
Congress to prohibit oil exploration and development in the calving and
post-calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, and that the public
lands in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ``1002 area'' be
designated as Wilderness to achieve this goal.
Oil Development Harms Caribou & other Wildlife
The Department of the Interior's 1987 Coastal Plain Resource
Assessment clearly documented major impacts to wildlife from proposed
oil development including:
Displacement and reduction of wildlife populations
including muskox and Porcupine caribou.
Permanent loss of habitat.
Increased noise and other disturbance factors.
Major effects on subsistence and subsistence lifestyle.
A 2002 study by U.S. Geological Survey biologists reconfirmed what
most scientists and scientific organizations have been stating for
years: the coastal plain ``1002 area'' of the Arctic Refuge provides
important wildlife habitat, and industrial development of this area
poses significant risks to caribou and other species. Most
significantly, the report concluded that the oil facilities at Prudhoe
Bay have displaced female caribou from their previously preferred
calving habitat, and that similar displacement is likely to result if
oil development is authorized in the Arctic Refuge.
According to the 2002 U.S. Geological Survey study (Arctic Refuge
Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries. Biological
Science Report), caribou use of the oil field region at Prudhoe bay has
declined considerably from that noted during the 1970's. Caribou
abundance within the main industrial complex as well as east-west
movements through that area were significantly lower than for other
areas occupied by caribou along the arctic coast. Conservative
calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease in use by caribou.
There was a demonstrated shift of concentration calving in the
areas of the Central Arctic caribou herd away from petroleum
development infrastructures. It is assumed that the Porcupine Caribou
Herd will avoid roads and pipelines during calving in a manner similar
to the Central Arctic herd if development in the 1002 area occurs.
Avoidance of petroleum development infrastructure during parturient
[birthing] caribou during the first weeks of the lives of calving is
the most consistently observed behavioral response of caribou to
development
The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is too
fragile to withstand the disturbances associated with development
activities. Since 1996, the Prudhoe Bay oil fields and the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline have caused an average of over 400 spills annually on the
North Slope--most commonly spills of diesel and crude oil. Whether
those spills were caused by an accident or faulty maintenance, the
biological balance of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain is too delicate
to be put at such risk. There is no technology available that would
provide optimum safety for the Porcupine Caribou Herd if oil
development occurred in the refuge. Even with the latest practices, oil
production occurs all year-round, relying on permanent gravel roads and
airports with thousands of flights during construction and operations.
To further emphasize these points, I draw upon the 2003 National
Academy of Sciences report, Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and
Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope. The landmark study, published
only a few short weeks ago, is the first comprehensive look at more
than a quarter-century of oil drilling on Alaska's North Slope.
Confirming many of our long-held concerns, the study produced a series
of findings which affirmed that development on the North Slope has had
adverse effects on the human, cultural, subsistence, and social
environment.
The National Academy of Sciences findings included:
Alterations to the North Slope physical environment have had
aesthetic, cultural, and spiritual effects on human populations.
The committee heard repeatedly from North Slope Inupiat
residents that the imposition of a huge industrial complex on the
Arctic landscape was offensive to the people and an affront to the
spirit of the land.
North Slope residents also reported that traditional
subsistence hunting areas have been reduced, the behavior and migratory
patters of key subsistence species have changed, and there is increased
incidence of cancer and diabetes, and disruption of traditional social
systems.
In addition, Inupiat at Prudhoe Bay find they are a small
minority in a primarily white workforce that can sometimes express
hostility toward Alaskan Natives. The jobs available to the Inupiat
often are seen by them as menial or as token jobs.
The Arctic Refuge represents only five percent of America's Arctic
coastal ecosystem protected by law from the oil industry, whereas the
remaining ninety-five percent is open to oil exploration and
development. At a time when the American Nation is finding out more
about the harmful effects of oil and gas development, the Gwich'in feel
we should be extremely cautious of exposing new areas such as the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the pollutive oil and gas industry.
Permanent Protection is Needed
Until the Arctic Refuge is permanently protected, pro-development
forces will try to gain access to the coastal plain of the Arctic
Refuge. The oil companies (ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, BP, and
ConocoPhillips), The Department of Interior, Arctic Power and their
allies in Congress must respect the opinion of the American public;
polls show overwhelming opposition to opening the Arctic Refuge to oil
drilling. Therefore, we urge the House Resources Committee to support
H.R. 770, the wilderness legislation, to this end.
Native American Tribes support the Gwich'in:
``We support the Gwich'in to seek permanent protection of this
sacred Arctic Refuge, which is vital to their livelihood.
Regardless of how much oil may be in the refuge, it is morally
wrong to expect the Gwich'in to sacrifice their way of life to
meet this country's energy needs. What will be lost and what is
at stake is too high a price to pay.''--(Alaska Inter-Tribal
Council 2002)
The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments, Tanana Chiefs
Conference, Alaska Inter-Tribal Council representing 187 tribes in
Alaska, International Indian Treaty Council, Indigenous Environmental
Network, Native American Rights Fund, National Congress of American
Indians and numerous individual tribes oppose development in the
coastal plain ``1002 area'' in defense of the human rights of the
Gwich'in Nation.
International Porcupine Caribou Herd Agreement
For over a decade, the Porcupine Caribou Herd has been the subject
of an international agreement with Canada that the Gwich'in communities
in both countries, as well as representatives from Kaktovik worked hard
to achieve. This agreement states:
``...Recognizing that the Porcupine Caribou Herd regularly migrates
across the international boundary between Canada and the United States
of America and that caribou in their large free-roaming herds comprise
a unique and irreplaceable natural resource of great value which each
generation should maintain and make use of so as to conserve them for
future generations.''
``...Recognizing the importance of conserving the habitat of the
Porcupine Caribou Herd, including such areas as calving and post
calving, migration, wintering and insect relief habitat.''
The objectives of the Parties are:
To conserve the Porcupine Caribou Herd and its habitat through
international co-operation and co-ordination so that the risk of
irreversible damage or long-term adverse affects as a result of use of
caribou or their habitat is minimized.
(International Agreement between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of Canada on the Conservation of
the Porcupine Caribou Herd, `June 17, 1987).
Sustainable Development /Alternatives
``They [the Gwich'in] do not want this [oil development]--they are
fighting for their most fundamental right to exist as an indigenous
people who are an integral part of the landscape, of the unique ecology
of this region. We cannot condemn the Gwich'in as a people; we must
respect their right to survival. We cannot ignore their rights the way
we did in the last century. We cannot sacrifice them for the greed of a
few oil companies or for a few months' supply of oil.''
--The late Senator Paul Wellstone, 1991.
As our Elders and Chiefs of the Gwich'in Nation resolved in 1988,
the public lands of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge must receive permanent protection status as designated
Wilderness through an Act of Congress. The President of the United
States and the U.S. Congress ought to encourage, promote and honor the
rights of the Gwich'in to live our way of life and be able to pass this
way of life on to our future generations. We should not be forced to
sacrifice our way of life for six months of oil, ten years from now.
Potential U.S. Oil Supply--6 months
Development Time + 10 years
Destruction Amount = Generations
The Gwich'in Nation acknowledges the great promise the United
States has in becoming a world leader in the promotion of sustainable
energy initiatives. By supporting the enhancement of economically
viable alternative energy development, we can begin the process of
weaning ourselves from the destructive and pollutive fossil fuel energy
industry. The technology necessary to accomplish this end currently
exists. By reinvesting our efforts into the development of wind, solar,
and hydrogen energy, the United States holds great promise in leading
our world into the new energy era of the Millennium.
The Gwich'in Nation further recognizes that there are viable
economic alternatives for the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and the
Kaktovik Inupiaq Corporation which could potentially entail the trading
of their sub-surface mineral rights on the coastal plain to other lands
elsewhere on the North Slope outside of the Arctic Refuge. Solutions
such as the one mentioned above would enable the people of Kaktovik to
continue generating profits while also allowing the Gwich'in to
continue our way of life.
Recommendations
H.R. 770 would serve to beneficially designate the coastal plain of
the Arctic Refuge as Wilderness. Conferring such status upon the
coastal plain would serve to protect the subsistence rights of all
Alaskan Natives who maintain a relationship of traditional and
customary use of this area. Wilderness designation is simply an overlay
over the existing refuge purposes- and these include protection of
subsistence resources and access. Therefore, the Wilderness bill is
designed to provide continued opportunities for subsistence practices
in protection of our Native way of life. We recommend that the Chairman
and his colleagues take these important points into consideration as
they make their decision regarding the H.R. 770 bill.
Our Nation's leaders must be willing to begin taking these first
few steps to adequately address our current energy problems in ways
which will ultimately be beneficial to the health and well being of all
our future generations. The maximum production-based philosophy that
guides are energy consumption practices serves to currently undermine
our sacred responsibility to act as stewards of our environment. We
therefore ask that this distinguished body call upon the United States
to permanently protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil
exploration and drilling, and to uphold the economic, social, and
cultural rights of the Gwich'in People.
Mahsi' Choo (Thank you).
______
Ms. Miller. Thank you. You might wonder why I'm here. I
don't live in Kaktovik, I could be considered an outsider. I
love the Arctic Refuge. I'm a 28-year Alaska resident. My
daughter who is now 16 years old learned to walk on the coastal
plain of the Arctic Refuge. When she was a 1 year old, she came
on her first trip here.
This is a national treasure. We only have one Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. It's a beautiful area. I was thinking
about the comment of it being a moonscape, I think Senator
Murkowski at one time referred to the coastal plain as a
moonscape.
Yesterday when I flew into Kaktovik, I looked down as we
got over the coastal plain, beautiful day, you could see all
the Brooks Range. And as we reached the coastal plain, I looked
down and I saw craters on the coastal plain. It reminded me of
your comment of the moonscape.
The craters were made by caribou digging through the snow
to get their lichens to sustain them. Even in this time of
year, there are caribou on the coastal plain of the Arctic
Refuge, not anywhere to the degree that we have in the summer
when, of course, the area explodes with life.
I would love to see you come back here as a Committee to
see the area in the summertime. This is a vital area of the
Arctic Refuge. If you had to pick one place in the Arctic
Refuge, one place that is the most sensitive area, it is the
coastal plain. This is the center of wildlife activity.
The second largest herd in Alaska, the Porcupine caribou
herd, has come here for thousands of years. They follow the
same trails that are etched in the tundra to deliver their
calves.
I have witnessed this. I have been out on the Coastal
Plains, and I have had 50,000 caribou surrounding me. Here is a
picture that I took on the coastal plain. This is a wildlife
spectacle when you are surrounded by 50,000 animals, calves.
Oil development would change all this. You would lose the
wilderness quality, and that's what we're advocating here.
I wholeheartedly support H.R. 770. We--largely because it
is a wilderness, it has always been a wilderness. The House of
Representatives twice voted to designate the coastal plain and
the former Arctic Range, wilderness back in 1978 and '79--
twice.
And the Senate changed that with passage of ANILCA, the
Alaska Lands Act, requiring that this area be studied. Not only
for its oil and gas potential, but also for its biological
values, and its wilderness values.
That study was released in 1987, and while there may be
potential oil and gas resources in the 1002 area, and the
numbers vary, some people say billions of barrels, maybe
there's zero, but what we do know is that the whole coastal
plain meets the wilderness criteria. It is an extraordinary
birthplace for wildlife.
Another picture that I have here, shows the mountains of
the coastal plain. We look at this picture, this is what it
looks like in the summer. You're here in the winter, but in the
summer, this was my first trip along the Opilak River.
We were walking across the tundra--it looks empty in this
picture, but if you were on the ground, there are over a
hundred species of birds that come to this area to nest from
six continents. This is a convergent point for many, many
millions of birds that flock to this area. It's not only a
birthplace for the caribou, it's a birthplace for birds that
make exhaustive migrations.
I stood on the top of that mountain in the picture. When
you're on the top of that mountain you see the whole coastal
plain area. You see the Arctic Ocean. It's the wildest view
that I have ever seen in my life. I felt the greatest peace
when I stood on top of that mountain.
There is nothing like that in the circumpolar north. These
are the highest mountains above the Arctic Circle in the world.
We're talking a world-class area that is magnificent.
Oil development will change that, with hundreds of miles of
pipelines, of roads, of facilities, air pollution, oil spills,
and people would no longer be able to hunt and fish from
Kaktovik.
Wilderness would protect the people of Kaktovik because in
wilderness, you can still hunt and fish, you can drive snow
machines in wilderness, but in an oil field, if you go to
Prudhoe Bay, there's a big sign on the guard shack that says no
firearms. You can't hunt next to an oil facility where you
might kill a worker, or you might hit a pipeline, or you might
hit the side of a building.
The people in Nuiqsut that are surrounded by oil
development, they are troubled by this. Many of their comments
are in this report that Mr. Thompson has referred to, the
Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on
Alaska's North Slope.
Here is a 400-page report that talks about what oil
development does to a landscape and does to the people of
Nuiqsut, which is the only Inupiat village that is surrounded
by oil development. They are not happy.
I, as a journalist, went to Nuiqsut, wrote an article about
my trip there, about what the people felt about the benefits of
oil, and what they felt about the negative parts of oil
development in the community. I've attached that article to my
testimony. It's an extensive article. I spent several days
there.
To sum up, the North Slope of Alaska, if you could hold up
that map. Just so the members can see, if we look at the North
Slope of Alaska, 95 percent of the North Slope is dedicated to
oil and gas development in this state.
The Federal Government has opened the National Petroleum
Reserve,a 23-million-acre area, where you see the yellow, and
the red area to the east, state lands, development extends for
120 miles, which you will fly over today.
Thousands of miles of pipelines, roads, 25 producing fields
is what we have on the North Slope of Alaska right now. Not
one, we don't just have one Prudhoe Bay, we have 25 producing
fields.
And just to show you that we have an alternative to
drilling here, on the front page of the paper today, this is
very meaningful, the front page of the Fairbanks Daily News-
Miner, ``An Elephant in NPR-A, Foothills?''
First paragraph, ``Anadarko Petroleum Corporation now
believes the hydrocarbon potential of the National Petroleum
Reserve and Foothills regions of the North Slope is as great as
the huge Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields combined, in the
neighborhood of 17 billion barrels.''
This is land west of the Arctic Refuge. This will keep the
pipeline flowing not only for 30 years, as Mr. Thompson has
indicated, this will keep the pipeline flowing for another 30
years after that.
The Chairman. I'm going to have to ask you to--
Ms. Miller. This is very important, you know, and I submit
this into the record, as well.
We have other alternatives to drilling, we do not need to
drill in the Arctic Refuge. If there was no other place to
drill on the North Slope, we could consider areas like this.
This is a national treasure for all Americans and to protect
the people of Kaktovik for their subsistence access, and
traditions, this should be designated as wilderness.
Thank you very much for allowing me to testify before the
Committee..
[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:]
Statement of Debbie S. Miller, Author, Fairbanks, Alaska
Mr. Chairman and members of the House Resources Committee, thank
you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 770, the Morris K. Udall Arctic
Wilderness Act. This significant piece of legislation will formally
designate the 1.5-million-acre 1002 coastal plain area of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness in recognition of its
extraordinary and unique values As part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System, the Arctic Refuge coastal plain will be off-limits
to any industrial development. By designating the Arctic coastal plain
wilderness, Congress will permanently protect the truly wild character
of this spectacular and wildlife-rich land that is wedged between the
Brooks Range and the Beaufort Sea. Congress will also protect
subsistence resources and access that are specific purposes of the
Arctic Refuge today.
I'm honored to be testifying in full support of this wilderness
legislation at this first field hearing in Kaktovik. However, I'm
surprised and extremely disappointed that three days ago the House
Resources Committee passed Energy legislation that would allow oil
development on the coastal plain, which would destroy the wilderness
values of the area. I speak in opposition to H.R. 39, the Arctic
Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act of 2003 that would allow
drilling and was basically wrapped into the Energy bill earlier in the
week. Why hold what appears to be a disingenuous field hearing after
the Committee has already made its decision on the issue at hand?
Having lived in the Gwich'in village of Arctic Village, I'm also
disappointed that some members of your Committee have traveled a great
distance to attend this hearing, yet your Committee has declined the
invitation to stop in Arctic Village, a community that lies on the
southern boundary of the Arctic Refuge. The Gwich'in people have
depended on the wildlife resources of the Arctic Refuge for many
thousands of years, in particular the Porcupine Caribou Herd. The
Gwich'in Steering Committee has asked me to hand-deliver their
invitation to hold a hearing in Arctic Village, and their testimony to
you. I submit their heartfelt words into the record.
Introduction
I have been asked to testify about the wilderness values of the
Arctic Refuge coastal plain on behalf of the Alaska Wilderness League
and other conservation organizations. Over the past 28 years, I have
explored the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on numerous occasions,
hiked across the coastal plain, assisted with a wilderness study of the
1002 area, shared incredible wilderness experiences with my family, and
written several books and publications about the wilderness and
wildlife of the Arctic Refuge. Like the people of Kaktovik and Arctic
Village, I love the wilderness, the beauty, and the extraordinary
diversity of wildlife of the Arctic Refuge with my whole heart and
soul.
There are some wild places in the world that are so special and
unique that they deserve full protection from industrial encroachment.
The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of
those extraordinary places on earth that we should permanently protect
for the benefit of the wildlife that depends on these coastal lands,
the truly great wilderness itself, and for the Inupiat and Gwich'in
people who have depended on the subsistence resources of the coastal
plain for thousands of years. By fully protecting the coastal plain,
Congress will also bequeath to all Americans, and the world, an
unmatched wilderness legacy. I am here today to share with you my views
of why the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is so special and
deserving of full wilderness protection.
Wilderness and Subsistence Hunting and Fishing
If the coastal plain is designated wilderness, it will protect the
subsistence resources and cultural values of the Inupiat and Gwich'in
peoples. While oil fields restrict people and hunting access with the
complexity of infrastructure, pipelines, security checks, coastal plain
wilderness would continue to allow subsistence hunting and fishing,
berry picking, camping, and traditional access by snow machine and
boats. Subsistence hunting and fishing opportunities are clearly
protected in ANILCA under Title I and Title VIII, and through the
Arctic Refuge management purposes. Nothing in the wilderness bill would
change these basic purposes of the refuge.
Simply put, coastal plain designated wilderness will protect the
area from industrial and commercial-scale developments and road
building. Subsistence hunting and fishing opportunities will continue
as they always have.
Wilderness and Other Wildlife on the Coastal Plain
I always marvel at the diversity of birds when I visit the coastal
plain during the nesting season. Graceful tundra swans mate for life
and fly to the Arctic Refuge each year from places like Chesapeake Bay.
The American golden plover makes a 10,000 mile migration from the
Pampas in Argentina to nest on the tundra. Lapland longspurs sing their
hearts out in the stiffest of arctic gales. Four species of loons can
be spotted on ponds and in the lagoons. Golden eagles and snowy owls
might glide by you. I love the birds of the coastal plain and marvel at
their dramatic annual migrations.
The coastal plain provides habitat for 135 species of birds,
including 70 regular nesters. Birds come from all 50 states, Mexico,
Central and South America, the mid and South Pacific Islands, Asia, and
even Africa and Antarctica. The coastal plain is a critical migratory
destination for birds from nearly every continent.
While wilderness would protect this vital birthplace, oil field
development would destroy and fragment bird habitat. Noise, general
disturbance and pollutants from oil spills and other activities would
degrade habitat. Recent findings reported by the National Research
Council indicate that the oil fields have increased populations of
ravens, gulls and foxes that are attracted to human food and garbage.
Predation on some species of tundra nesting birds has significantly
increased as a result.[1]
Grizzly bears have also been impacted by garbage on the North Slope
oil fields. The National Research Council sadly reveals that out of 12
grizzly bear cubs, seven bears were killed in defense of life and
property because they had been conditioned by scavenging on garbage.[2]
Shouldn't wildlife refuges offer a place where bears can be wild and
not grow dependent on landfills and garbage dumps? If the coastal plain
is designated wilderness, grizzlies will have a better chance of
running wild and living garbage-free lives.
Wilderness and Polar Bears
The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge has the highest density of
land-denning maternal polar bears in America. Of great concern would be
the significant adverse effects from proposed oil development on these
magnificent animals and their newborn cubs. It is imperative that our
country protects the bears during their sensitive denning period in the
winter. The United States, along with other circumpolar nations, are
required to protect ecosystems that contain polar bears with special
attention given to denning habitat. If oil development is allowed on
the coastal plain, the U.S. will be violating this international
Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears.
Current three-dimensional (3D) survey techniques require multiple
survey lines about 300 to 400 yards apart. These surveys create more
trails and tundra damage than older 2D methods because of the increased
number of lines and the amount of vehicle turning that is required.
Noise from heavy equipment, work crews and seismic vibrations can
disturb denning polar bears, causing them to abandon their dens and
lose their cubs.
By designating the coastal plain wilderness, polar bear denning
habitat would be permanently protected and the United States would take
a leadership role in following the requirements of the international
polar bear agreement.
Oil Development and the village of Nuiqsut
In 2001, I was asked as a journalist to write a detailed article on
the subject of cumulative effects of oil and gas development on
Alaska's North Slope. Over the past three decades North Slope oil
development has spread extensively from the Canning River to beyond the
Colville River into the NPRA. 25 producing fields now sprawl across
1,000 square miles (see attachments). I decided to focus on the Inupiat
village of Nuiqsut, the only community that is surrounded by oil
development on Alaska's North Slope. Since few journalists had visited
Nuiqsut, I thought it was important to hear their views on oil field
activities.
I spent many days in Nuiqsut and interviewed individuals at the
school, health clinic, city office, public safety office, village
corporation, hotel, and general store. I met with youths and elders,
oil field workers and village leaders, hunters and hotel workers.
Villagers were extremely open and friendly, and they wanted to share
their concerns.
Many had complaints about the changes their community was feeling
from increased oil development. While some appreciated their jobs at
the Alpine field, about 8 miles from the village, others were
distressed about the increased number of health and social problems,
air pollution, oil spill clean up procedures, poor hunting access, and
the difficulty of finding caribou. While the community first welcomed
oil development because of jobs and increased revenues, many residents
expressed their concern and frustration over the increased number of
outside workers and traffic in the village, and the feeling that the
village was boxed in by oil development.
If Nuiqsut is any indication, I fear that the Inupiat of Kaktovik
may be faced with similar concerns and frustrations if oil development
was ever allowed on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. My article
entitled ``Ground Zero'' is attached.
History
The wilderness values of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have
long been recognized by conservationists, ecologists, scientists,
explorers, public land specialists, the majority of Americans, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and two former presidents--President Dwight
Eisenhower and President Jimmy Carter. Support for protecting the
Arctic coastal plain from oil development has been bipartisan,
reflecting the overwhelming voices of Americans who believe that as a
nation we should leave one relatively small portion of our Arctic
coastal region free of industrialization. It has been well documented
that the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is the most sensitive
reproductive area of the refuge, the birthplace for many migratory
species, including one of the largest caribou herds in North America.
It's important to look back at the history of the establishment of
the original Arctic National Wildlife Range. During the early 1950s the
National Park Service conducted an Alaska Recreational Survey under the
leadership of the late George Collins who traveled extensively across
Alaska to a develop a parks and recreation program. At that time, all
lands north of the crest of the Brooks Range were still withdrawn under
Public Land Order No. 82, which reserved the use of North Slope lands
in connection with World War II. This sweeping withdrawal was about the
size of South Dakota and included the 23-million acre National
Petroleum Reserve (NPRA), 20 million acres of Central Arctic lands
where Prudhoe Bay and 24 other producing fields are now located, and 5
million acres of lands that would eventually become part of the Arctic
National Wildlife Range.
When Collins investigated the Arctic region in 1951, it is
interesting to note that he met with USGS senior official John C. Reed.
Reed had traveled throughout northern Alaska and recognized that the
northeastern corner had ideal characteristics for a future park. Since
the Navy was exploring for oil and gas in NPRA, Reed recommended that
Collins concentrate his survey efforts in the northeastern corner of
Alaska, steering clear of potential oil and gas development conflicts.
In a 1988 letter to Representative Morris K. Udall Collins wrote:
``It is true that the USGS told me during the early fifties
that if the Park Service would stay east of the Canning River,
well away from the National Petroleum Reserve, we would not be
in the hair of the oil people...''[3]
Collins acted on the advise of the USGS and ultimately chose the
Canning River as the western boundary of the proposed Arctic Range.
When Collins surveyed the area he noted that the northeast region
contained all of the ideal values of conservation area. The region
contained the highest glaciated peaks in the Brooks in arctic North
America, a complete spectrum of habitats from the south slope of the
Brooks Range to the Arctic Ocean, and a tremendous diversity of
wildlife that was virtually undisturbed.
Collins and biologist Lowell Sumner lay the groundwork for the
establishment of an arctic preserve. They drew support from prominent
conservationists such as Olaus and Margaret Murie, Richard Leonard, Sig
Olson, and others. The dream of preserving the northeast corner
bloomed. In 1959, the Department of Interior drafted legislation to
establish the Arctic National Wildlife Range. Hearings on this
legislation were conducted in several Alaska towns and in Washington
D.C. While some were opposed to the establishment of an Arctic Range,
the majority of those who testified favored the concept of preserving
some of Alaska's vast wilderness for future generations.
Establishment of the Arctic Range in 1960
During the waning hours of the Eisenhower administration, it was
clear that the Arctic Range legislation would not pass Congress.
Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton was convinced that the proposal
should move forward. On December 6, 1960, Secretary Seaton signed
Public Land Order 2214 which established the 8.9 million acre Arctic
National Wildlife Range in order to preserve its unique wildlife,
wilderness, and recreational values.
In addition to establishing the Arctic Range, Seaton also revoked
Public Land Order No. 82, which opened some 20 million acres of North
Slope lands. Many at the time considered this a fair trade, but there
were some Alaskans from the mining sector who were disgruntled. The
Fairbanks Daily News Miner published a strong editorial that supported
the formation of the Arctic Range and the 20 million acre deal.
``We favor the proposal for the Arctic Wildlife Range. We think the
complaint of those opposing it is akin to that of a small boy who has
just been given a pie much larger than he can eat but who cries anyway
when someone tries to cut a small sliver out of it.
We ask those who would raise strong protest over reserving this
comparatively ``small sliver'' to stop and ponder the fact that 20
million acres now being made available for development by Secretary
Seaton's action comprises an area which exceeds the total land area of
five New England states combined.''[4]
Indeed, it was more than a fair trade. The giant Prudhoe Bay oil
field would later be discovered on those North Slope lands. Today, the
State of Alaska has reserved 14 of those 20 million acres for oil and
gas leasing, and has received billions of dollars in revenues from the
public lands that Seaton relinquished.
It is unthinkable, particularly on the 100th anniversary year of
the National Wildlife Refuge System, that Congress would consider
violating the purposes for the establishment of our only Arctic Refuge,
by allowing oil and gas development in the most biologically sensitive
area of the refuge. Such an action would stab the heart of the Arctic
Refuge and set a horrible precedent for the more than 500 wildlife
refuges that have been set aside to protect precious wildlife and
habitats. Oil field development with its maze of roads, pipelines,
processing centers, facilities, airports, and scattered drilling pads
is clearly not compatible with the purposes for which our country set
aside this refuge.
Wilderness Proposals
Subsequent to the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the
Department of Interior produced a wilderness study and proposal for the
Arctic Range. A 1978 draft environmental impact statement noted that:
``All of the 8.9 million acres within the Arctic National Wildlife
Range have outstanding wilderness qualities and ones considered
suitable for inclusion of the National Wildlife Preservation System
(with the exception of the Distant Early Warning Station sites which
have since been cleaned up).
The 1978 draft specifically notes that the Arctic coastline
ecosystem is the most biologically productive area in the Arctic Range
and that the proposed wilderness would include a rare example of an
undisturbed tundra ecosystem.
``Located in a region which is rapidly being altered by
industrial development, its value as an ecological study area
increases with time...With wilderness designation, this segment
of the ecosystem may be the only portion of the Arctic coastal
plain saved in its natural condition, considering the degree of
development that is occurring to the west...''[5]
During the late 70s there were many hearings regarding the
wilderness and wildlife values of the Arctic National Wildlife Range
with respect to the proposed Arctic Gas Pipeline and the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Secretary Cecil
Andrus summed up the Administration's position in a speech before the
Outdoor Writers Association on June 14, 1978:
``In some places, such as the Arctic Refuge, the wildlife and
natural values are so magnificent and so enduring that they
transcend the value of any mineral that might lie beneath the
surface. Such minerals are finite. Production inevitably means
changes whose impacts will be measured in geologic time in
order to gain marginal benefits that may last a few
years...''[6]
House of Representatives designated the Arctic Range wilderness
After much debate over ANILCA, the House of Representatives
ultimately voted twice in 1978 and 1979 to designate the original
Arctic National Wildlife Range (including the coastal plain) as
wilderness. However, when the legislation reached the Senate, study
provisions were added under Title 10, including Section 1002, which
mandated an assessment of the fish and wildlife resources and the oil
and gas potential of 1.5 million-acre coastal plain. While a one-time
seismic exploration program was authorized in the 1002 area, any
further exploration, leasing, and oil and gas development or production
was prohibited under Section 1002(i) and 1003.
Over the years, some members of the Alaska delegation have
erroneously claimed that the 1002 coastal plain area is not part of the
refuge. The Title X studies of ANILCA did not change the land status of
the coastal plain. This de facto wilderness has always been a part of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and was part of the original
Arctic Range. This is spelled out in Section 303 (2) of ANILCA which
also defines four purposes for which the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge was established:
to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in
their natural diversity including, but not limited to, the Porcupine
caribou herd, polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, Dall sheep, wolves,
wolverines, snow geese, peregrine falcons and other migratory birds and
Arctic char and grayling;
to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the
United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats;
to provide the opportunity for continued subsistence uses
by local residents; and,
to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a
manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water
quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge.
It is unthinkable, particularly on the 100th anniversary year of
the National Wildlife Refuge System, that Congress would consider
violating the purposes for the establishment of our only Arctic Refuge,
by allowing oil and gas development in the most biologically sensitive
area of the refuge. Such an action would stab the heart of the Arctic
Refuge and set a horrible precedent for the more than 500 wildlife
refuges that have been set aside to protect precious wildlife and
habitats. Oil field development with its maze of roads, pipelines,
processing centers, facilities, airports, and scattered drilling pads
is clearly not compatible with the purposes of the Arctic Refuge.
Significant adverse impacts cannot be avoided with a major oil field
complex. The wilderness character of the coastal plain would be
destroyed, which would also violate one of the original 1960 purposes.
An Unforgettable Wilderness
Over the past 28 years I have been most fortunate to make many
trips to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I've hiked through the
majestic Brooks Range, climbed many nameless peaks, floated down wild
rivers such as the Canning and Kongakut Rivers, walked across the
coastal plain on numerous occasions, and camped in some of the most
beautiful places on earth. The vastness, peace and great beauty of the
Arctic wilderness keeps calling me back. Encounters with the tremendous
diversity of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge are not forgotten.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The coastal plain offers
spectacular vistas of the Brooks Range, which includes the highest
glaciated peaks above the Arctic Circle in North America. When I've
waked from the Beaufort Sea coast to the mountains in the summer the
expansive views across the flower-specked plains are magnificent. To
the south you can watch storm clouds billow above snow-capped
mountains, to the north the never-setting midnight sun rolls across
above the ice-mantled sea. It is a vast, open land free of man's
industrial hand, but so full of life.
My most memorable wilderness experiences in the Arctic Refuge have
occurred on the coastal plain. On one summer day, a herd of 40,000
caribou migrated past us, on their way to the coast to seek relief from
the swarming mosquitoes. There were so many caribou that the earth
appeared to be moving. I could only see a jungle of legs, cows with
their newborn calves. The land was flooded with new life. The varied
sounds of the caribou were as impressive as the spectacle. I like to
think of it as a caribou symphony with clicking hooves, grunts and
bellows, and young voices of calves. It was a once in a lifetime
experience.
The coastal plain is the birthplace and nursery grounds for one of
the largest caribou herds in North America--- 129,000 animals. Even
during years when the caribou are forced to drop their calves outside
the coastal plain, due to heavy snowfall or a late spring, the
Porcupine Herd always returns to the coastal plain because of the
desirable foraging and insect relief habitat, and there are fewer
predators than in the mountains.
Oil Development and Caribou
Does a major oil field development belong in such a birthplace? The
coastal plain is a relatively narrow stretch of tundra, 15 to 40 miles
wide. It is well-documented that the Central Arctic caribou herd has
been displaced from their former range by oil field facilities, roads,
pipelines and associated disturbances. The cows and calves are
particularly vulnerable to noise and traffic. While the smaller Central
Arctic herd has grown over the years, the herd has moved away from oil
field activities into non-industrialized areas.
The National Research Council recently issued the first report on
the Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Activities on
Alaska's North Slope. This report presents disturbing findings on the
effects of oil field activities on the Central Arctic Herd. The
findings state:
*The intensively developed part of the Prudhoe Bay Oil Complex has
altered the distribution of female caribou during the summer insect
season. Elsewhere, a network of roads, pipelines, facilities has
interfered with their movements between coastal insect relief and
inland feeding areas. Possible consequences of these disturbances
include reduced nutrient acquisition and retention throughout the
calving and midsummer periods, poorer condition in autumn, and a
lowered probability of producing a calf in the following spring.
*As a result of conflicts with industrial activity during the
calving and an interaction of disturbance with the stress of summer
insect harassment, reproductive success of Central Arctic Herd caribou
in contact with oil development from 1988 through 2001 was lower than
for undisturbed females, contributing to an overall reduction in herd
productivity.[7]
The report suggests that consequences similar to those reported for
the Central Arctic Herd are possible on the Porcupine Caribou Herd
summer range. However, the Porcupine Caribou Herd has the lowest growth
capacity of the four arctic herds and the least capacity to resist
natural and man-induced stresses. With the lack of suitable alternative
habitats, due to the size of the herd and narrowness of the coastal
plain, industrial activity could have substantial effects on the
Porcupine Herd.
The first Arctic Refuge purpose is to ``conserve fish and wildlife
populations and habitats in their natural diversity.'' Based on studies
to date, oil development would clearly put the Porcupine Herd at risk
in terms of reproductive success. The disturbance from the possible web
of facilities, roads, traffic, compressors, and pipelines would disrupt
and alter the natural diversity of the coastal plain wilderness
ecosystem and the free movements of caribou.
Arctic Refuge purposes also provide for the opportunity of
continued subsistence uses by the Inupiat and the Gwich'in people. If
the Porcupine Herd suffers as a result of oil field activities and loss
of habitat, so will the Gwich'in people who have traditionally depended
on the herd as a major subsistence resource for at least 10,000 years.
The Inupiat will also be impacted, as they will be restricted from
hunting near oil field facilities and pipelines due to public safety
issues.
Existing Wilderness:
Approximately 8 million acres of the Arctic Refuge, south of the
coastal plain, is official wilderness. One summer I climbed Mt.
Michelson, the second highest peak in the Brooks Range, located in the
wilderness portion of the refuge. From the top of this magnificent
mountain you have a sweeping view of the Brooks Range mountains to the
east and west, and you can look north across the vast sweep of coastal
plain to the Beaufort Sea, beyond toward the North Pole.
I have climbed many mountains in Alaska, British Columbia, the
Pacific Northwest, the Rockies, and in the Sierra. The view from Mt.
Michelson stands alone as being the greatest wilderness vista that I
have ever seen. It is an unlimited, far-reaching view that takes you
beyond the edge of the North America continent. I have never felt more
free, more humble, more awestruck, or felt such great peace, as when I
gazed out that day across the Brooks Range, across the expansive
coastal plain.
If oil development invades this last protected stretch of Arctic
coastline, not only would we lose the wilderness character of the
coastal plain, and our last undeveloped wild stretch of coastline, but
we would also degrade the scenic values of the existing wilderness. If
one climbs a mountain in the Brooks Range and looks out at belching
smoke, gas flares, and a web of pipelines and roads, the true
wilderness will be gone. All for what may be a few billion barrels of
oil that might fuel our nation for six months, and reduce our imports
by only 2%. We could easily save more oil by driving more fuel
efficient vehicles.
The original Arctic Range and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
should not be taken apart and carved up. Of all the places in the
Arctic Refuge, the coastal plain is perhaps most deserving of
wilderness designation because of its wildlife and scenic values. It is
a sensitive birthplace. An open wilderness full of life. A place where
oil fields don't belong. It is an extraordinary beautiful place that we
should forever protect for future generations of Americans, Arctic
wildlife, and for the great land itself.
REFERENCES
[1] National Research Council. Cumulative Environmental Effects of
Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska's North Slope. Pg. 194
[2]National Research Council. Pg. 191
[3] Letter from George Collins to Morris K. Udall, May 3, 1988
[4] Fairbanks Daily News Miner editorial, Fall of 1957
[5] U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Draft Environmental Statement, Proposed Arctic Wilderness, Alaska,
February, 1978.
[6] U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Fairbanks.
Arctic National Wildlife Range: Wilderness Proposal History. June,
1978.
[7] National Research Council. pgs. 187-188. March, 2003.
______
[Attachments to Ms. Miller's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6329.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6329.005
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Thompson, do you support
making all of the lands that the village corporation owns as
wilderness lands, as well?
Mr. Thompson. The corporation lands, I don't think that the
government can make it a wilderness. It's private land, as far
as I know.
The Chairman. Well, it--one of the questions that's come up
on Mr. Markey's bill is whether or not those lands would be
included in his wilderness designation because of the language
that's used in his bill.
Mr. Thompson. I was under the assumption that it's fee
simple land and the people own it. So it's up to them.
The Chairman. But by the definitions that he's used,
there's a question as to whether that is included, as well. And
I'm just wondering if you support that or you don't support
that?
Mr. Thompson. I'm not sure what the corporations, if they
agree, but I think they should look at the legality of it
because it is private property.
The Chairman. I agree with that, but you don't support
doing that? Including that in the wilderness?
Mr. Thompson. Well, wilderness designation, but I--
The Chairman. If it were possible?
Mr. Thompson. Yes. But it's inconsistent to say they don't
want it.
The Chairman. One of the things that you said in your oral
testimony was that there were less caribou today than there
were before, I believe you said 50,000--
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
The Chairman. --less than there were before.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, about 50,000 less in the last few years.
The Chairman. We have heard differing testimony on that.
Which herd are you talking about and which population of
caribou are you talking about?
Mr. Thompson. This is the Porcupine caribou herd.
The Chairman. Because we've actually heard that there were
more now than there were before.
Mr. Thompson. You're thinking of the Central Arctic, that
has increased. But the Porcupine herd, from what I've heard, is
less than it was previously.
The Chairman. And what do you believe has caused that?
Mr. Thompson. We had 2 years where it was very deep snow
and the caribou weren't able to get into their normal calving
area on schedule. And they had a very high mortality rate.
The deep snow is kind of unusual, it's been happening more
and probably related to the warmer weather, to the global
warming, more precipitation, and a lot of snow, takes longer to
melt off in the spring.
The Chairman. And how do you believe that the exploration
will impact that?
Mr. Thompson. The exploration is in the calving area of the
Porcupine caribou herd. So whatever infrastructure, equipment,
activity will have an adverse effect. They are very sensitive
to disturbance during that stage. In fact, at Prudhoe Bay, the
calving area that they previously had has been displaced and
they don't calve there anymore.
The Chairman. OK. Well, I thank you for your testimony. I'm
going to recognize Mr. Rehberg.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned the
National Research Council study in your testimony. Who
requested that study.
Mr. Thompson. That's what I read in the paper. Just a
newspaper account. The Republicans in support of drilling, and
requested in that report.
Mr. Rehberg. And it's within that report, then, that
specifically talks about disruption of traditional social
systems?
Mr. Thompson. Yeah.
Mr. Rehberg. And forgive me, and the audience as well, I'm
more familiar with reservations in Montana: The Crow and the
Northern Cheyenne and the Blackfeet and the Sioux. The Inupiat
are Eskimos. Is everybody within the area that we're talking
about from the same group? Inupiat Eskimos?
Mr. Thompson. Well, there's nonnatives there also.
Mr. Rehberg. Are you--
Mr. Thompson. I'm Eskimo.
Mr. Rehberg. Inupiat?
Mr. Thompson. Yes. But I'm not in the corporation here. I
mean, there is different people, different status. I was from
another area. So--
Mr. Rehberg. Well, we'll have an opportunity to ask you
after I've talked to the proponents from the residents here,
what are the traditional social systems that you think that the
development will permanently affect?
I assume we're going to hear that there is a reason for it,
they want to change some of the culture, they want to bring
some economic opportunity for their children and futures for
their own retirement. And what is it exactly that you, as an
Eskimo, think it's going to destroy?
Mr. Thompson. Well, for the biggest part it would be the
hunting. The oil activity most likely will be concentrating
here on the coast as the indications are that large deposits
are near shore and off shore. So that is a big concern. Most of
our caribou hunting is very close on the coastline.
Mr. Rehberg. If the footprint is limited to what the
legislation last year said, 2,000 acres or less, out of 19
million acres, is it, in your estimation, all or nothing, that
2,000 acre footprint is going to destroy the traditional
culture?
Mr. Thompson. Some people are led to believe that 2,000
acres would be over by the existing oil field, but the 2,000
acres is all through the refuge. The oil will have to be
transported by pipes, and so the calculation is--doesn't sound
like very much, but it traverses the whole area.
Mr. Rehberg. But 2,000 acres is 2,000 acres.
Mr. Thompson. Yeah, but you've also got airports, you've
got jetports involved, you've got traffic, helicopter traffic
going on. You've got--
Mr. Rehberg. But that has to be included within the 2,000
acres. That's--that's why--
Mr. Thompson. The 2,000 acres is just part of it because
the activity related to you getting onto that 2,000 acres is
extensive.
If they use ice roads, there won't be any road system in
the summer, you'll have to service all these facilities with
aircraft. And so there will be a constant stream of aircraft.
Mr. Rehberg. And maybe you can't answer this and I'll ask
somebody else later if they can. I'm certainly no engineer, but
why do they have to bring water in for the ice field? I mean,
if there isn't water there, can't they bring water in for the
ice fields?
Mr. Thompson. They can't use--
Mr. Rehberg. Or ice roads, I'm sorry.
Mr. Thompson. They can't use saltwater because it's harmful
to the environment. There's very few lakes or rivers that are--
well, most of the rivers are frozen to the bottom, there's no
water in them right now. And they need the water to mix with
the snow to create the ice.
Mr. Rehberg. You can't keep packing the snow down and down
and down and down and create a pad?
Mr. Thompson. Right. They don't--they don't have a supply.
I mean, there's no water.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Renzi.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Miller, I want to go back to your testimony, if you
don't mind.
You made a statement about your personal peace that you
felt when you were on top of that mountain. And then you
jumped, under sworn testimony, to what I thought was kind of an
extreme statement, you said that no longer would the people of
Kaktovik be able to hunt or fish. Under sworn testimony.
That sounds a little strong, particularly given the people
here in this room whose livelihood depends very much on hunting
and fishing. And I have a tough time kind of putting the two
together.
Ms. Miller. Would you like me to clarify that.
Mr. Renzi. Would you like to clarify that?
Ms. Miller. I would be happy to clarify that. Have you been
to the Prudhoe Bay oil fields?
Mr. Renzi. I have not.
Ms. Miller. If you go to the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, you
have to go through security checkpoints, there's a big sign
that says you can't take firearms.
I have talked to hunters when I did my research in Nuiqsut
and they are eight miles from the Alpine Field, which you will
be seeing later today.
I have talked to hunters that have gone out hunting caribou
and have been unable to shoot at animals because they have been
standing in front of the facilities. So for public safety, it's
an issue.
If you have this 2,000 acres, it's not consolidated, as Mr.
Thompson was trying to explain, you might have 10 different
small oil fields scattered across the coastal plain, you might
have 20 because the USGS report in 1998 specifically said that
there are many small traps of oil in the 1002 area, which will
require more, not less pipelines, facilities.
So when I said that about the hunting, my thought was if
people in Kaktovik are used to going out on snow machines and
hunting across the coastal plain, they will have obstacles.
There will be barriers if the infrastructure covers this area,
and they will not be able to hunt as they have always hunted.
So I'm totally honest about that.
Mr. Renzi. I see. Thank you. The information and testimony
that we received from the Committee talks about the size of the
footprint, talks about the new technology. The law demands that
the newest technology be used, the absolute newest. Not the
technology that exists 20 years ago or when the original
pipeline was first created. It demands not just the most
commercial technology be used, but it demands that the
environment and the people's way of life not be impacted.
Ms. Miller. It's impossible.
Mr. Renzi. Well, ma'am, the impact in relation to the game
is something that I think is why we have such a contentious
argument between each other. You talk about an absolute or a
pristine model that you have in your mind, and you talk about
the need to have oil for a nation that is getting oil from a
dictator right now.
You talk about the fact that you're up here and as if--and
as if you don't belong to the Nation of the United States. As
if this is your ground and it's not to be included in the
country. There is an absolute brother and sisterhood
relationship between Alaska and the Lower 48 states, it's not a
separate entity. And our nation and our people need to work in
harmony with each other.
Ms. Miller. I--
Mr. Renzi. If I can finish, please.
The letters that we receive, you've got a little Morgan
VanHatten, student body president, who says that she feels ANWR
should be opened up.
You've got Isaac Akootchook, who is the reverend here, who
says that we should work in harmony with the earth, but that
he's willing to work, given the provisions of the language that
the Chairman has included.
You've got Herman Aishanna, who was a captain here, a
whaling captain, a former mayor and city council person who
favors beginning and working together with new technologies,
with legal parameters that protect the landscape, that protect
the wildlife, that protect their way of life.
And so I find your statement to be extreme. I find it to be
personal in nature, as to what you want as your own pristine
environment. And given the fact that, sir, I think you've got
local people here who don't agree with your local view.
It's interesting that a lot of the letters that we're
receiving want to make sure the language is involved, does
protect, and that we do move forward together.
Would you like to comment?
Mr. Thompson. Well, I heard the comments from Nuiqsut where
the same language presumably was in place when their
development started and the oil field is much more extensive
than what they anticipated. And they are not happy with it.
And also, in this situation, there's more oil development
in the works that's not even being considered with this
hearing, talking about off shore, that--that's going to be
happening. So there's much more affecting the future that
aren't being addressed.
Mr. Renzi. I want to--let me just close with this, Mr.
Chairman, I have one other question.
We received testimony about a study of this Arctic herd of
the caribou. And in this testimony, not only did we learn that
the Central herd has grown in population, but that the
Porcupine herd that you referred to actually doesn't always
calve on the Coastal Plains. And in fact, in 2000, 2001, and
2002, that that was the case. Now, that was a bipartisan study.
Go ahead.
Mr. Thompson. They did calve on the coastal plain in 2002.
That is an incorrect statement.
Mr. Renzi. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, you're saying this
bipartisan study that was conducted by the U.S. Geological
Survey is incorrect?
Mr. Thompson. That is incorrect.
Mr. Renzi. As your sworn testimony?
Mr. Thompson. Yes. It is my belief that I saw the calves.
Mr. Renzi. That may be a percentage, a small percentage of
the calves actually in 2002. Either way, my point is the calves
don't always occur here, the birthing place doesn't always
occur here of the Porcupine herd; is that a fact?
Mr. Thompson. Well, occasionally, as I mentioned, they
can't make it because of the deep snow conditions. And every
time they don't make it, when they don't get here, the survival
rate is reduced substantial. And it's this area that they
traditionally or usually goes to calve in is very central to
their continued survival.
We're having these adverse effects with no impacts of the
people, so throw in the oil activity and so on, and it
deteriorates.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Nunes.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. If the gentlemen will suspend for just a
minute. If I could ask the members and the witnesses to try to
keep the talk loud because I step to the back of the room and
we really can't--the folks in the back can't really hear. So
when you're asking questions or answering questions, try to
speak loudly because they really can't hear.
So thank you. Mr. Nunes.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Thompson, I want to ask you some personal questions
since you're a resident of this area. And we have a lot of
residents of this area here today.
What role, in your opinion, should the Federal Government
play in regards to not only this community, but the surrounding
19 million acres?
I know what role they have played in the past with the
designation, but what role do you personally feel that folks
like myself and the Chairman and others should have here in the
most northern part of North America?
Mr. Thompson. Well, it should be to the dictates of the
people of the United States. They--you know, people vote on it
and whatever happens will happen anyway. That's why we're
having this process to let people's views be known. Whatever is
outcome is, that's the obligation of the representatives.
Mr. Nunes. So you feel that the Lower 48 states should
dictate what happens with the 19 million acres in this Refuge?
Mr. Thompson. Well, if it was up to me, I would say the
people here should, but that's not--you know, it belongs to the
Federal Government. We have had our land claims and we can't
claim it anymore. So it's up to the Federal Government.
Mr. Nunes. So that gets back to my question, sir. Do you
think that the local people should have control of these lands
and not the Federal Government, like the Federal Government
has?
Mr. Thompson. The 19 million acres?
Mr. Nunes. Yes. Would you rather see the local people have
control over it, versus the Secretary of the Interior and
ultimately Congress?
Mr. Thompson. Well, what we have, we've got corporations
that are mandated to make money, and the officials of these
corporations, if they didn't pursue ANWR development, they
would be derelict in their duties. So they are doing what their
corporations mandate, but there's people like me that don't go
along with it.
Mr. Nunes. The corporations meaning who?
Mr. Thompson. The village corporation, the native
corporation, the regional corporation.
Mr. Nunes. And who mandates them to make money?
Mr. Thompson. Well, it's a for-profit corporation. I mean
according to bylaws, it's created for the purpose of making
money. And if they did not pursue ANWR development, which is to
make money, they would be derelict in their duties. So they
must do that.
Mr. Nunes. So I come from a farm, and 2000 acres out of
this 19 million acres is where the footprint would lay. And
you--earlier, you disagreed with that, you said it's going to
be more than 2,000 acres, or do you agree that the 2,000 acres
is where the footprint would lay?
Mr. Thompson. Well, I'm a little unclear of how this 2,000
acres is calculated. At times I have heard that it is the
square footage of the support beams rather than the pipe
itself. So can you clarify that? I don't know.
Mr. Nunes. I'm asking you.
Mr. Thompson. OK. I believe it's 2000, but it will, in any
event, it will have to be scattered over an area of about 100
miles in length and about 40 miles in depth.
Mr. Nunes. One and a half million acres?
Mr. Thompson. Whatever.
Mr. Nunes. So then you do agree, that the footprint is
2,000 acres?
Mr. Thompson. That's what they say, yes.
Mr. Nunes. And you think that this footprint would be--
Mr. Thompson. I don't know if it's in the bill that's 2000,
but industry has been stating they would only utilize 2,000. So
I'm not sure if that's part of the bill, the 2000 acres. Is it?
I mean, I don't know.
The Chairman. Well, it's not--it's not in the current bill.
It was in last year's bill.
Mr. Thompson. Everybody says it's 2000, but I didn't read
it in the bill.
Mr. Nunes. So let's say that it's not 2000. Let's say that
it's 20,000 acres. What real damage, is going to be done, in
your opinion, to the environment if it was 2,000, 10,000,
20,000 acres?
Mr. Thompson. Well, I've been to Prudhoe Bay and there's
flaring goes on, and I've seen the black smoke from Prudhoe Bay
all the way over to here, and I don't believe the government
has ever created any regulations to determine if that is a
harmful substance or not.
But we do have a lot of smoke pollution from that, that
even gets to here, without anything being done here. So when it
starts here, I presume it will be the same, we will be exposed
to that.
Mr. Nunes. So you're concerned about black smoke that would
come from drilling on--
Mr. Thompson. Well, it's done in Prudhoe and I presume they
would have to do that.
Mr. Nunes. If the people of this community feel that there
should be drilling on this one and a half million acres, should
they be allowed to do it?
Mr. Thompson. Well, the large part of that doesn't belong
to the people of this community. It belongs to the people of
the United States. And the people of the United States, as I
understand, don't want it.
Mr. Nunes. But you said earlier in your testimony that you
thought that that was wrong, that people should control this
land.
Mr. Thompson. Well, at one time the Native people of Alaska
controlled all of the Alaskan state. Now we're down to like 10
percent through Native Claims Settlement Act, so we don't have
any control over the rest of it.
To me it would be a hypothetical to even, you know, think
that we--we as the people have--our voice only is concerned,
considered. It's the people of the United States, of the whole
United States.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Unlike my colleague who brought up the corporations, can
you explain, do the villagers here or the Native people here,
are they part of these corporations or are these all outside
interests?
Mr. Thompson. The Native Claims Settlement Act was set up
so there is a corporation in each village. And I believe the
corporation and members of this village are probably only about
one-third of the population. They don't represent all of the
people in Kaktovik.
Ms. Bordallo. About one-third. OK. Do you, when you speak,
Mr. Thompson, do you represent people here or is this just your
own singular thoughts?
Mr. Thompson. I'm not--
Ms. Bordallo. You're not an organization?
Mr. Thompson. No, I'm not representing any other entities.
Ms. Bordallo. Other than your own. Because I think it's
important here and I feel all of us want to hear from the
people, you know, I think that's important, and the people that
live in this region and so forth.
And how about you, Ms. Miller, do you represent anybody
other than yourself?
Ms. Miller. Well, I represent my family, I represent the
Alaska Wilderness League, I'm a founding board member of that
particular group that is based in Washington D.C., the only
conservation group that specifically focuses on Alaska
conservation issues. And that is my love, my passion is the
wilderness of Alaska.
I write about the area, so I really represent myself, as an
author, as a mother, and also as a member of the Alaska
Wilderness League.
Many conservation groups in Alaska do support the position
that this area is very special, not only to Alaskans, but to
the United States and the world, as a treasure, an arctic
ecosystem that is unmatched anywhere in the world. And that is
why we have worked so hard to protect this area. So hard.
I didn't show one picture, if I may, just--Richard, I
wanted to--we have been talking about pipelines and buildings.
You won't get on the ground quite to see this, but you'll
probably be getting an overflight, but this is in the Prudhoe
Bay oil fields.
We have many, many pipelines, buildings, the gas flaring
that Mr. Thompson was just talking about that goes off all the
time and creates a tremendous amount of pollution. The people
of Nuiqsut have had increased asthma cases, it's documented in
my article, from the flaring.
Very toxic kinds of pollution that many people in Nuiqsut
have been very troubled over because of increased asthma cases
and carcinogenic problems, as well. So you'll be hearing more
about that if you--
Ms. Bordallo. Yes, I haven't had a chance to look at the
report.
Ms. Miller. This picture gives you an idea of what the oil
fields look like. You can't go hunting in a place like that.
You can imagine a snow machine.
Ms. Bordallo. I do thank you both, you know, for your
testimonies, and I know that we all want to hear the input of
the people of this region.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Thompson, I think you've indicated--I think you've
indicated you're not a shareholder here?
Mr. Thompson. I'm not.
Senator Murkowski. OK. You know, I guess the concern that I
have, you've indicated that you support the legislation that
would create a wilderness area here.
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. And the concern I think that so many of
us have is under the land selections, the people of Kaktovik
selected, I understand it was about 92,000 acres around here,
they have the surface rights, the Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation has the subsurface rights.
So if, in fact, we were to designate this as wilderness,
how do we--how do we address the land grant that we made to the
residents of this room saying, you've got your right to select
these lands, they have selected them, and now we are saying,
whoops, pulling the rug out from underneath you, we are
designating it as wilderness, and they now have no rights to
develop the land that they were granted?
And I'm not really asking you a question, I guess I'm just
expressing my concern that these lands were selected by the
folks in Kaktovik to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and
a wilderness designation, unfortunately, a wilderness
designation, in my opinion, is an area that is wilderness
completely, has always been wilderness.
And these people have been here for, I don't know, how many
generations back people in this room go. And as we know, there
has been significant activity up here for quite some time.
You say you are a wilderness guide by occupation. As a
wilderness guide, how do you--how do you do your guiding? How
do you get your clients around?
Mr. Thompson. Well, in the winter I use snow machines.
Senator Murkowski. And in the summer, how do you--like, for
instance, when you took this photographer around, how were you
able to do the guiding?
Mr. Thompson. We flew in with aircraft.
Senator Murkowski. If you were able to fly in with
aircraft, you've got to have areas where you can land. And if
we were to designate this as wilderness area, what would that
do to you and your wilderness guide business?
Mr. Thompson. It wouldn't change it. The landing places are
already there. A lot of the places where a guide can park are,
in fact, wilderness at this moment.
Senator Murkowski. Ms. Miller, I wanted to ask you, there
was--there was mention made by both of you about this report,
Cumulative Impact of Development on the North Slope. I will
confess I have not read the full 400 pages, I've probably read
about a hundred of it.
And I found the report interesting in many of the things
that it stated that we were doing right up here. And in
speaking, I had a briefing by about eight of the scientists
that were involved with the preparation of that report.
And I asked them flat out, I said, this report is going to
be released this afternoon, and we're trying to get ANWR open,
there are those that are trying to keep ANWR closed, how is
this report going to be used to help those of us that are
proponents of opening ANWR?
And the scientists that were in that room said, you know
what, this is a blueprint of how to do it right. How to do it
better.
So it is a fascinating study. I thought the one thing that
was very compelling, and you mentioned this, you said the
concern about oil spills, we are going to have oil spills.
Well, in fact, the report provides that there is no cumulative
effect of oil spill up here on the North Slope, and so I think
we need to look at that.
One of the things that it did state, though, is there is an
impact with development?
And this community center is an impact of what happens on
the North Slope, what happens as a consequence of oil drilling
of oil resources.
And I asked, do you--would you consider a school or a
community center or a clinic as a negative impact. And the
scientists said to me, well, yeah, because it's not the way it
used to be.
So the folks that are in this community center now, if you
consider this a negative impact, we've got some talking to do
with the scientists and the people back East.
Ms. Miller. Could I comment?
Senator Murkowski. Yes, please.
Ms. Miller. One thing I think is really important to
recognize is the people of Kaktovik and Barter Island, they
have their own surface lands, with their own origin, their
own--they use their own lands.
But the fact that the 1002 area is around them, actually,
is like a wilderness buffer. It's always been a wilderness,
it's de facto wilderness. They have used these lands over time.
Wilderness doesn't prevent that.
Wilderness can be used by people for traditional
subsistence hunting, fishing, and snow machine use. Wilderness
does not preclude that. It actually protects the cultural
traditions and the rights of the people. It doesn't preclude
that use.
So I--I don't--it meets the criteria under the Wilderness
Act, but they don't actually look at this medium as part of
that criteria. All of the wilderness studies have focused on
the land itself beyond the township.
Senator Murkowski. Would you support--
The Chairman. Would you yield here just a moment? There's
one thing that both of you keep saying that I think I need to
point out to you, this bill puts the Arctic Coastal Plain in
the Wilderness Act, under the Wilderness Act. You can't take
your snow machine into the wilderness area.
Ms. Miller. Yes, you can. No, this is absolutely wrong.
These people in Kaktovik hunt for Dall sheep in the wilderness
area of the Arctic Refuge.
The Chairman. That is a separate--that is the Alaska
Wilderness Act. That is not what this bill does. This bill puts
it under the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Ms. Miller. But their rights are guaranteed under ANILCA.
The Chairman. That's not what this bill calls for.
Ms. Miller. If it doesn't call for that, it should be added
as a provision. I would recommend that today because--
The Chairman. But that is not what it calls for. But--
Ms. Miller. But it's already written into law. That those
rights are protected by ANILCA.
The Chairman. That's a separate law. And what this is
saying is that it would be pulled in under the Wilderness Act.
It doesn't say that it would be taken in under the Alaska
Wilderness Act, which is something different. And there are
different things that were protected under the Alaska
Wilderness Act than are in the generic Wilderness Act. And that
is not what this law requires.
Ms. Miller. If that is your understanding, that is a
shortcoming.
The Chairman. I'm just reading the bill.
Ms. Miller. And ANILCA guarantees that. Guarantees that.
The Chairman. This is not ANILCA. This is not--that is not
what this bill does.
Ms. Miller. Well, there should be a provision added to
clarify that because that is definitely--it is my understanding
that that is not the case. And ANILCA allows for hunting and
fishing and traditional activities--
The Chairman. That is not ANILCA.
Mr. Renzi. That is not ANILCA. That's not what the bill
does.
Ms. Miller. Then it should be--
Mr. Renzi. I apologize to the Senator.
Ms. Miller. Then it should be added for a point of
clarification, and I would still recommend that provision--and
I'm sorry Representative Markey isn't here because that should
be in the bill to clarify that this wilderness and this area
would be used just as it always has been for the last 6,000
years that the Inupiat people have lived in this area, it would
not change.
And if it's not clear in the bill, then that is an error.
Because ANILCA guarantees that for the Native people in this
village, as it does for the Gwich'in people. This clarification
should be in the bill.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up
on the wilderness discussion.
Currently, there's some discussion about designating
certain parts of NPR-A as wilderness, would you support that?
Ms. Miller. I would support the special areas that have
been identified and I have not studied that very closely. I
know that it's a 23 million acre petroleum reserve, and there
have been very few special areas, as I understand it, that have
been identified that are very sensitive for wildlife, and I
would support a special area to be protected in a possible
wilderness classification. I think that would be a wise choice
to have a little bit of NPR-A set aside. The most sensitive
areas. In fact, the best protections.
Senator Murkowski. I think in your testimony, and I didn't
write it down, but you indicated that the potential there in
NPR-A for vast reserves was certainly there. And I was just
wondering if you were supportive of the wilderness designation?
Ms. Miller. I'm supportive of the development there.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to, for
the benefit of the members that are here, there were a couple
charts that we did bring down.
I know the people of Kaktovik have probably seen them, but
since we've been showing pictures. There's one chart here,
we're talking about the caribou. And this is--this is up in
Prudhoe. This is not Kaktovik. But I do need to tell the story.
And anybody who has been around Prudhoe, I spent--I put
myself through law school working up in Prudhoe and helping to
develop oil activity up here, and am proud of what we were able
to do up there. And I was fascinated with the compatibility of
the caribou to the fields.
And I understand that calving is different, but if we're
concerned about these caribou migrating through, they go over
the roads and under the line and looking for a place to get out
of wind and get up on the road, and I think it's significant to
look at the pictures.
The other one is just a--it's just a fun shot because we
like to talk about our wildlife. And these are the three bears
on the top of the pipeline. I have no idea how they got up
there, but everyone likes to see that picture. E I think I put
them up there.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Miller. About the bears, one of the things I would urge
you to read is the effects of oil fields on bears. In the study
it notes that there were 12 grizzly bears, cubs. And of the 12
grizzly bear cubs in this study, 7 were killed in defense of
life, defense of property and life because they had become
habituated to garbage and landfills, and had to be killed
because, you know, the story of Toby that walked into the
Prudhoe Bay Hotel and had to be shot. So there are impacts to
bears.
Senator Murkowski. Just as when wildlife comes into a
community that's not associated with any kind of oil
development, they become a garbage bear, we have to do
something with them.
Ms. Miller. It also notes in the same report that--and I
can read from it. It says, ``as a result of conflicts with
industrial activity during calving and an interaction of
disturbance with the stress of summer insect harassment,
reproductive success of the Central Arctic herd female caribou
in contact with oil development over a 13-year period was lower
than for those that were undisturbed,'' that were living away
from the oil fields. So this contributed to an overall
reduction of the herds--as stated in this report.
So what we have is animals that live away from the oil
fields--and Prudhoe Bay is very different from this 1002 area.
The coastal plain near Prudhoe Bay stretches for 100 miles from
the coast of the mountains.
So the caribou there are a much smaller herd, currently,
27,000 animals in the Central Arctic herd, and we have 129,000
in the porcupine herd here, those animals have moved away from
the disturbance areas, the cows and the calves that are so
sensitive have moved away from it. And the animals, although
the herd has grown, they have been displaced.
If that happened with the porcupine herd, in the 1002 area,
they would be displaced into the mountains. And in the
mountains, that's where you have the predators and that's where
you have a lower survival rate, higher mortality, and the herd
would decrease. That's all documented in this report and the
1002 report.
The Chairman. Thank you. And I thank both of our panelists
for their testimony, for answering the questions. I'm going to
excuse you and call up our second panel.
We have The Honorable George Tagarook, The Honorable Herman
Aishanna, Ms. Morgan VanHatten, and Mr. Isaac Akootchook.
If we could also have Mr. George Kaleak, Sr., join us at
the witness table, as well.
If I can have the members sit down.
Mr. Akootchook. I need to have an interpreter.
The Chairman. Yeah, would you please step forward. If I can
have the members of the panel now who have settled in, if I
could have the members of the panel stand.
[witnesses sworn.]
The Chairman. Let the record show all witnesses answered
``yes.''
As I explained to the previous panel, your entire written
statements will be included in the record. If you could
maintain your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
The lights up here in front of you will give you an idea.
During your oral testimony, the first 4 minutes the green light
will be on and the yellow light will come on when you have a
minute left. When red light comes on, I would appreciate it if
you would stop at that point or sum up as quickly as possible.
But the entire written testimony that you gave us will be
included in the record.
So I appreciate it, you being here. I would also like to--
there was a slight mix-up on the part of the Committee. Mr.
Kaleak was supposed to testify, and because of a mix-up on the
part of the Committee, he was not included in the official
record.
I would like to ask the unanimous consent that Mr. Kaleak
be allowed to testify before the Committee, and that his entire
testimony be included in the record.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
I think we will start with Mr. Tagarook, if I may.
Mr. Tagarook. Thank you, Chairman Pombo, Committee,
Governor. And to you, Mayor. Audience.
With respect to my elders, I'll request that they have the
elders talk first, then work my way over.
The Chairman. That would--that would be fine. They didn't
give them to me in the line of--
Mr. Tagarook. Well, we will have Isaac start first, then
Herman, then George, then Morgan, and then I'll speak. If you
have no objections to that, we'll start with Isaac.
The Chairman. Well, I had him wrapping up, but--
Mr. Tagarook. Oh, you did? OK.
The Chairman. If that's the way you want to do it, that's
perfectly fine.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in Native language.).
The Interpreter. He would like to have the younger
generation speak first so he would have a chance to fix them.
The Chairman. We can deal with that.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE TAGAROOK, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND FORMER
MAYOR, KAKTOVIK, ALASKA
Mr. Tagarook. Then I will start. Thank you.
Welcome to Kaktovik. I'm here to submit a statement from
the city of Kaktovik. And also a few more items I'm going to
present while I give my oral.
I'm kind of tired, my arms, because we took an 8-hour snow
machine ride from Deadhorse to Kaktovik yesterday. The only
caribou I saw were between Prudhoe Bay and Badami. There's no
caribou on the Coastal Plains like somebody has just stated
today. They are up in the mountains, on Hulahula and the
Sadlerochit area. There are no caribou, there's nothing on the
Coastal Plains. I want to make that a record.
We're in support of the development, responsible oil
development, and we're opposed to any wilderness designation. I
don't know, somebody from Outside making decisions for us,
that's pretty bad. And I'm glad you guys are here to hear our
comments.
The 1002 area can be developed in an environmentally sound
way. We've witnessed that in Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay has been
in existence for over 30 years. And I would like to submit a
fact that 95 percent of the North Slope is not open to oil and
gas development. The fact is, only 14 percent of Alaska arctic
shoreline is actually open to oil and gas development. I will
submit that for the record.
And they talk about wildlife. This is an article I want to
submit, it talks about moonscapes and mountains. The one that
we're responding 10 miles out of Kaktovik and works its way to
the foothills. And we do hunt that area. We hunt, fish, hunt
geese.
The other native tribe that lives on the south Brooks of
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge do live on the south side, but
they are not native to the 1002 area. They are adamant about
turning this place into a wilderness. Their concern is caribou.
The caribou in the Porcupine caribou are here 30 to 40 days
a year for calving. That's only the spring. From June until
about mid July. That's the only time they are here. We do get a
mixture of Central caribou herd and some mixture of Porcupine
herd intermingled in, you know, together.
But the fact is that caribou, you know, are here 25 to 30--
30 to 40 days of the year. They don't hang--hang around all
winter long. I don't know. I wished I had saw caribou yesterday
on the Coastal Plains, I could have brought it home, but I
didn't.
It's amazing what the environmentalists do to an area where
they don't live in. They use the ANWR issue as a, you know,
cash cow. Those big Manillaq books, articles, maps, photos,
pictures, that's really absurd.
I mean, if we put it here, we would be millionaires right
now, but we're not. But they got the money and the power, I
mean, they got the people.
But we're--we're here for responsible development. If we
could somehow help the Committee and have the Committee help us
in responsible development, we're prepared--pretty prepared for
the exploration.
So I adamantly oppose a wilderness designation, and that
concludes my comments. But I'll take any questions that you
might have.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tagarook follows:]
Statement of George Tagarook, Member, Kaktovik City Council
As the only resident people of the Arctic Drainage from east of the
Canadian border to west of the Canning River, and thus the entire
northern portions of what has been called the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, we, the people of Kaktovik want to express our appreciation to
the Mouse Resources Committee and especially to Chairman Pombo for
coming hereto the very heart of the ANWR 1002 debate to hear the views
of the people most directly affected in this matter.
For background on this issue and our place in it, we refer the
Committee to consensus documents drawn up by the people of Kaktovik
some years ago. These documents what we call ``the Kaktovik Papers''
and titled In This Place: A Guide to Those Wishing to Work in the
Country of the Kaktovikmiut--express our views not only on oil and gas
development but also our view of the larger picture, our place in the
scheme of things. The City Council recently reviewed these documents
and confirmed that they remain current and consistent with their
original objectives, to explain to others just how things are here. We
recommend that anyone with any interest in these precious lands and
waters that form the homelands of our people read and respect our views
collected and expressed in these documents. We hope they will help
those who do not understand that this part of the world is not the same
seen from here as from other places. We believe our view of it is a
valid, important and indeed a crucial one in this debate.
We urge the Committee to watch and respect the words of our people
presented in our video also entitled: In This Place. We were driven to
produce this video because what we saw on TV about us was so far off
base that we could barely recognize ourselves in it. People with video
cameras seemed, as if by magic, to record and then edit it selectively
so that we ended up saying things we would never say. So we thought to
try our hand at this magic, to see if it could be made to say what we
really do think and feel. In This Place does that, and we put it
forward as the real voices of Kaktovik.
Years ago, when the issue of oil exploration within the 1002
portion of the ANWR first came up, we were scattered on it. Some here
thought it a bad idea, a terrible risk both to us and to the country on
which we depend, the country that defines most of us as Native people.
Some thought it a good idea because it would allow us to benefit from
the petroleum resources that belong to us. As time went along, we
watched with some suspicion the activity at Prudhoe Bay, but as we
developed a working relationship with the petroleum industry, and as
they did things the way we wanted them to do, we assessed the costs and
the benefits of their being here on the North Slope and became
increasingly comfortable both with the industry and with our ability to
work with them. Today, nearly everyone here has moved towards the
development side. It does not frighten us as it once did when we knew
less about what it would be like, how the oil people would behave as
neighbors and what the downside would be.
However, the consensus drawn up here by the City and people of
Kaktovik should not be seen as an endorsement of anyone nor of any
position held by others. That is not the way we are. We don't choose up
sides, especially sides brought in from elsewhere. We have never spoken
as partisans on this issue. We respect the concerns of everyone, even
those with whom we disagree. Indeed, we have a few people here who are
rather passionate in their opposition to development of the 1002. That
is their right, and we respect them for making their point. Most of us
think they are wrong, that they simply do not understand this place or
its people, but we do listen to them and respect them.
Indeed, for anyone who really cares about this place, especially
those who respect us and our place at the center of this debate, who
recognize that nobody could possibly love this country more than we do,
to them we reach out our hand and ask that they join with us to see
that the things of value here are fully and completely protected
whatever happens.
To that end we have asked that any legislation drawn up to open the
1002 to development be written to allow our full and effective
participation in both the development and the direction of that
development. We hold that the best way to protect this country is to
see that those of us who understand it best and care most about it are
effectively empowered to aid and assist any who would work here, to see
that they do things right. We have put such language forward and are
now working with the staff of this Committee to assure that it becomes
law.
Those who know us know that the Inupiat are a progressive people
but a people with our feet solidly on the ground here. The ancestors of
our people found this place empty and have survived here for thousands
of years. The spirits of our people are here and will be here forever.
They are hard-wired to this place. And we, the now living, intend to be
here forever, never to leave our spirits behind. That is the point of
all this, to survive here in this magnificent place that is so much a
part of what we are, to protect it and to make the most of it. For us
this is not a romantic dream, a respite for a week to get away from the
mess people have made of other places, some cover for the awful things
they have done elsewhere. No, we intend to stay right here and to keep
sweet and whole both our people and this land to which we so firmly
attach.
To those who cannot see this, who see only emptiness here, who
cannot or will not recognize our shadows on the land, our footprints
that are everywhere, who cannot feel the spirits among us, all across
this country and far out to sea, to those who deny our very being by
declaring this a wilderness, to them we say this: Shame on you. Shame
for trying to deny that we are here and that we exist. Shame for coming
here and saying we do not matter. Shame for going into other Native
communities and having them seem to say things no Native person would
ever say about the homelands of another Native tribe. Shame. Shame.
Shame.
We can live with the oil people. They will come and go. They listen
to us and they have come to show us respect. Indeed, we can work with
and accommodate any who come here and show us respect. But for those
who come here to displace us with their own shallow visions and empty
illusions, we must ask you to leave. This is not a place for you. This
is no empty land and surely not a wilderness. We are here, even if you
will not see us. And you shall never displace us.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Let's go to Mr. Kaleak.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE KALEAK, SR., WHALING CO-CAPTAIN AND MEMBER,
NATIVE VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK COUNCIL
Mr. Kaleak. Hello. I welcome every one of you. Mayor
Ahmaogak.
Thanks for letting me speak today. My name is George
Kaleak, Sr.
I welcome you to my country, the country of my people who
discovered this place thousands of years ago, settled here,
protected, have never given it to anyone. This is our place,
the place that defines us as Native people. The place that
makes us whole.
We are at least as much a part of it as the caribou and the
snow geese, except we do not migrate as they do. We use all of
this country that drains into the Arctic Ocean. There is no
place on the Arctic Slope that does not bear our footprints. No
place.
We have never been everywhere gathering food, visiting both
the living and the spirits of those passed. All who reside
forever here with us in this vast home of the Inupiat, if it
seems empty to you, you are just not looking, not seeing the
real picture here.
Don't be confused by these little houses we sometimes stay
in here on Barter Island. We stay in them so our kids can go to
school and so we can make the money we need to live the lives
we want to live. Our home is far more than this little village.
Our home is all our country, from the Brooks Range to the
south, to many miles to sea.
As you may have noticed, it is often not easy to tell just
what is the land and what is sea, where the one ends and the
other begins. We use it all, every inch of it. We have to use
it all as we have always done, otherwise we could not survive
here.
People talk lots about jobs, jobs are important to
everyone. Their importance to us is probably different than
their importance to others. Jobs for our people give us money,
and we need to live off this country of ours.
Today it takes money to harvest the resource of land and
sea. Years ago before they found oil at Prudhoe Bay, many
people had so little money they could not afford the boats or
guns or anything else they needed to harvest the food they
need.
Some lived on the very edge of starvation, begging for food
from those who did have the means to gather it. Those were
wretched times, indeed. There have not been a lot of good times
here until recently.
We see lots of people with romantic ideas about the past,
people who think it would be nice to live the way we used to
live--indeed, that we should live that way. That there is
something wrong with the way we live now.
Let me assure you that nobody ever lived that way or--at or
over the edge of starvation would say that. That is not a good
place to be.
The income most of us have now have allowed us to buy the
tools we need to harvest the land, the sea, to find delivery of
the native food that we crave, the only food that can really
sustain people like us.
It also gives us the leisure that every civilization needs
to have a decent culture. Among other things, the new revenue
generated from our underground resources have created a great--
greatly enriched cultural life for the Inupiat.
We dance more and sing more and have much better times than
ever before. We speak our language more even have it taught in
our schools. In those good old days, our people were beaten for
speaking our language. In those days, outsiders ran the North
Slope and told us what to do.
It's not that way anymore, we run our own affairs. We
control our lives. We send our kids off to Harvard or Norway,
if that pleases them. We can afford to do that.
And we can afford to go to sea and catch a big black whale
that gives himself to us. We catch them and thank them and then
bring them home and eat them as they wanted us to do.
We go out in weather like this and look for wolves and
wolverines and great bears. And we catch the ones who want us
to catch them and make all kinds of beautiful things from them,
as they wanted us to do.
We catch a fish and the musk-oxen and the white sheep in
the mountains and the caribou and the snow geese and the ducks
who come to visit, who come here to give themselves to us, and
we eat them as they wanted us to do.
We can do all that because we have the means now to do it,
and the time to dance and sing and talk in our own language
about what we want to happen here.
Here in these lands that matter more to us than anyone from
any other place could ever imagine for reasons beyond us, some
people want to take that from us, take our food from our
tables, the tools we need to get that food, the joy we now have
from being able to dance and sing and tell stories in our own
language.
Maybe these strange people don't like the sounds of our
drums, which really is the beats of our hearts. That seems to
think--they seem to think this place is empty, a wilderness, a
place without people, or they want to make it that way, the
drums of its people seem--seem to bother them. They want all
that to go away.
It will not. In the end we shall be here, and these
strangers will go back to where they came from, whatever anyone
calls it, these homelands, these homelands of the Inupiat will
never be a wilderness. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaleak follows:]
Statement of George Kaleak, Whaling Co-Captain and Member, Native
Village of Kaktovik Council
My name is George Kaleak, Sr. I welcome you to my country, the
country of my people, who discovered this place thousands of years ago,
settled here, protected it have never given it to anyone. This is our
place, the place that defines us as a Native people, the place that
makes us whole. We are at least as much a part of it as the caribou and
the snow geese. . . except we do not migrate as they do.
We use all of this country that drains into the Arctic Ocean. There
is no place on the Arctic Slope that does not bear our footprints. No
place. We have been everywhere, gathering food, visiting both the
living and the spirits of those passed, all who reside forever here
with us in this vast home of the Inupiat. If it seems empty to you, you
are just not looking, not seeing the real picture here.
Don't be confused by these little houses we sometimes stay inhere
on Barter Island. We stay in them so our kids can go to school, and so
we can make the money we need to live the lives we want to live. Our
home is far more than this little village. Our home is all of our
country, from the Brooks Range to the south to many miles to sea. As
you may have noticed, it is often not easy to tell just what is land
and what is sea, where the one ends and the other begins. We use it
all, every inch of it. We have to use it all, as we have always done.
Otherwise, we could not survive here.
People talk a lot about jobs. Jobs are important to everyone. Their
importance to us is probably different from their importance to others.
Jobs for our people give us the money we need to live off this country
of ours. Today it takes money to harvest the resources of the land and
the sea- Years ago, before they found oil at Prudhoe Bay, many people
had so little money they could not afford the boats or guns or anything
else they needed to harvest the food they needed. Some lived on the
very edge of starvation, begging food from those who did have the means
to gather it. Those were wretched times. Indeed, there have not been a
lot of good tunes here, not until recently.
We see lots of people with romantic ideas about the past, people
who think it would be nice to live the way we used to live, indeed,
that we should live that way, that there is something wrong with the
way we live now. Let me assure you that nobody who ever live that way,
at or over the edge of starvation, would say that. That is not a good
place to be.
The income most of us now have allows us to buy the tools we need
to harvest the land and the sea, to find and deliver the Native food
that we crave, the only food that can really sustain people like us- It
also gives us the leisure that every civilization needs to have a
decent culture. Among other things, the new revenues generated from our
underground resources have created a greatly enriched cultural life for
the Inupiat. We dance more and sing more and have a much better time
than ever before. We speak our language more, even have it taught in
our schools. In those ``good old days'', our people were beaten for
speaking our language. In those days outsiders ran the North Slope and
told us what to do. It is not that way anymore. We run our own affairs.
We control our lives. We send our kids off to Harvard or Norway, if
that pleases them. We can afford to do that.
And we can afford to go to sea and catch the big black whales that
give themselves to us. We catch them and thank them and then bring them
home and eat them, as they wanted us to do.
We go out in weather like this and look for wolves and wolverine
and great bears and we catch the ones who want us to catch them and we
make all kinds of beautiful things from them, as they wanted us to do.
We catch the fish and the muskoxen and the white sheep in the
mountains and the caribou aud the snow geese and the ducks who cone to
visit, who come here to give themselves to us, and we eat them, as they
wanted us to do.
We can do all that because we have the means now to do it. And the
time to dance acid sing and talk in our own language about what we want
to happen here, here in these lands that matter more to us than anyone
from any other place could ever imagine.
For reasons beyond us, some people want to take that from us, take
our food from our tables, the tools we need to get that food, the joy
we now have from being able to dance and sing and tell stories in our
own language. Maybe these strange people don't like the sound of our
drums, which really is the beat of our hearts. They seem to think this
place is empty, a wilderness, a place without people. Or they want to
make it that way. The drums of its people seem bother them. They want
all that to go away.
It will not. In the end, we shall be here and these strangers will
go back where they came from. Whatever anyone calls it, these homelands
of the Inupiat will never be a wilderness.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Aishanna.
Mr. Aishanna. Aishanna.
The Chairman. You can give your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HERMAN AISHANNA, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND FORMER
MAYOR, KAKTOVIK, ALASKA
Mr. Aishanna. Chairman Pombo, I welcome you to Kaktovik.
Governor. Our good Mayor Ahmaogak. And the rest of the people
that are visiting.
My name is Herman Aishanna. Some of the people know me, I
guess. I've been around. I would like to say this is my home.
It's a little village by the side of the sea we call Kaktovik
is my home. Our home. We have about pretty close to 300 people
living here.
And all the lands that drains in the Arctic Ocean, we
consider it as our home. Where we harvest food for our people.
And all the way down to the ocean, as far as our little skiffs
can take us out safely. 30, sometimes more than 30 miles out
and come back. It's sometimes kind of dangerous to live here,
but I'm proud to be Kaktovikmiut.
My family is here, most of our families. We have a lot of
grandchildren growing up right now.
And look at this young lady right here. She's up there.
She's in school. And that's what we want. Some people want ANWR
to open, to help the education, get it funded more so these
people can finish their education.
And it's been awhile since I testified in front of you.
That was in Anchorage quite awhile back, since Governor Hickel.
Governor Hickel was my buddy then.
I'm just trying to highlight some of my written testimony.
We are glad that you're here, and I know that you came here
to listen to the people that actually live in Kaktovik. And I
thank--thank you for coming, coming up here.
And this debate about ANWR has been going on--I don't know.
If they had opened it when we first started, it would have been
flowing already.
Anyway, my corporation here actually has 92,000 acres of
its own up here. And Congress is holding it from being
developed anyway. And that is they're depriving my corporation
from economic development. I want you to understand that.
We are trying to be blocked out by people from so many
miles away. The people that are not living here, the 1002 area
is not a very beautiful place this time of the year, especially
when the wind is blowing and the snow is--snow is blowing.
The only time some people visit is in the summertime and
everything blooms. And I would like to see some people that
think that it's beautiful. It's not very beautiful in the
wintertime.
I will--I will submit this written statement. And also, I
have a Resolution 303-02, a resolution with respect to lands
use occupied and truthfully harvested by the people of Kaktovik
will be included in my written testimony.
As for--as for the wilderness, for any who think they can
make this rich and fully peopled country of the Kaktovikmiut
into a wilderness, they should be aware not only that we, the
living, are here, but also that the spirits of our people since
time immemorial are here.
No matter how blind, no matter what anyone wants to a
wilderness, and it will never be a wilderness. This country has
a people and today, you are looking at them.
Thank you.
[the statement of Mr. Aishanna follows:]
Statement of Herman Aishanna, Whaling Captain and Member,
Kaktovik City Council, Kaktovik, Alaska
My name is Herman Aishanna. This is my home, this little village by
the sea that we call Kaktovik--and all the lands that drain into the
Arctic Ocean--and all of that ocean as far out into it as we can get
our little boats and return safely--sometimes even beyond that. Our
people have often perished as they tried to provide for themselves and
their children in this dangerous country that is our home. Their
spirits and those of all the rest who have gone before us remain among
us, certifying that this is Inupiat country, now and forever, as it has
been for thousands of years.
I welcome you to this place, these homelands of our people. With
all due respect this visit is long overdue. For more years than I can
remember we have debated the opening of the 1002 to oil and gas
development. I have testified myself all over the place, even to this
Committee once in Anchorage. We have lots of visitors coming here not
so much to listen to us as to say they have been here, that they have
seen the 1002 and talked with us. We know they do not listen because
they do things we told them not to do. We know they do not listen to us
because we see them telling people how we feel about this, and they get
it all wrong.
That is why we are so happy to see you here today, to have this
chance to tell you what we think about this oil and gas thing, about
what we think should be done here on this precious country that defines
us as a Native people. We know you have not come just to tell people
you have been here. We know you have not come here to hear people from
someplace else. We know you have come to listen to us, to hear what we
have to say. We know you will not rush away, before you have heard us.
We know you will hear and respect our words. Otherwise, why would you
have gone to all this trouble?
One thing I want to make very clear. We seldom borrow the views of
others. We do not parrot their words. We are not part of some outside
point of view. We have our own views and our own concerns. We are not
part of some team with some agenda that make no sense to us. Although
we have said it many times in many places, I am sure many will be
surprised to learn that we are neither for nor against oil and gas
development east of the Canning River. Our position is far more
sensible than that.
Indeed, we wonder how anyone could be for or against something they
do not know or understand. Nobody knows what oil and gas development
east of the Canning will mean. Nobody has yet defined it.
On the other hand, we do have a great deal of knowledge of this
industry. The one thing we know about it is that they will do what they
are required to do. We also know that if they are properly controlled,
they need do very little harm. And so our position is a simple one.
They can work here if they do things the way they should. To assure
they do that, we have asked to be right in the middle of it, to help
those who come here to find oil do it right and to help those assigned
to protect this country make sure that they do do it right.
We have said this over and over again. We have said that this can
be done if it is done right. We know it can be done right. To see to
that, we want to be right on the cutting edge. We Inupiat are not a
passive people. When the whalers came, we took every advantage of them
we could. We picked and chose what we wanted from them. That is the way
it has to be here.
This Committee has the language we want to see in any bill that may
open the 1002 to oil and gas development. Our attorneys have given it
to you. Give us that language, give us that chance to protect our
people and our country, and we will be there to help you.
Those who know me know I have hardly ever threatened anyone. I am a
peaceful man. My people are peaceful people. But you may note that
nobody has ever us displaced here. Let me assure you nobody ever will.
For any who think they can make this rich and fully peopled country
of the Kaktovikmiut into a wilderness, they should be aware not only
that we the living are here but also that the spirits of our people
since time immemorial are here. No matter how blind, no matter what
anyone wants to call it, this country is hardly a wilderness--and it
will never be a wilderness. This country has a people and today you are
looking right at them.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Ms. VanHatten.
STATEMENT OF MORGAN VANHATTEN, STUDENT,
KAVEOLOOK SCHOOL, KAKTOVIK, ALASKA
Ms. VanHatten. Hello. My name is Morgan VanHatten and I'm
the student body president at my school. I would like to start
off by thanking all of you for being here to discuss this
important issue about the 1002 plans.
Personally, I think that ANWR should be opened because I
think that our community would benefit greatly from it. I also
support the decision that we, Kaktovik, need to make sure that
we get the support and acknowledgment that we deserve as a
community, especially during this time.
And if oil development does occur, then the Kaktovik people
need to be involved because it is us who know the land the
best.
It's also important that people around the country, as well
as yourselves, know that we are a community that use the land
around us for everyday purposes and we care just as much about
what happens and only want to see the best.
It's our responsibility to look out for the interests in
our community, rather than a person who is trying to take over
what is ours.
I hope that all of you see that whatever happens here,
whether ANWR opens or not, that we need to have a say and take
part in the decisionmaking.
And in addition to that, there was an article written by
the Mayor of Nuiqsut saying that oil drilling does threaten
native ways, and I think that's what could happen here if our
language isn't put into the bill.
And I think that if oil drilling does occur and Kaktovik
doesn't have a say, then it will threaten our native ways. And
I want to make sure that that gets put into it because I don't
think that happened with Nuiqsut, and I think that's where it
went wrong there.
And I would like this tape, In This Place, to be part of my
testimony also. The video. That's all. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. VanHatten follows:]
Statement of Morgan VanHatten, Student, Kaveolook School,
Kaktovik, Alaska
Hello, my name is Morgan VanHatten and I'm the students body
president at my school. I would like to start off by thanking all of
you for being here to discuss this important issue about the 1002
plans. Personally I think that ANWR should be opened because I think
that we as a community would benefit greatly from it. I also support
the decision that we, Kaktovik need to make sure that we get the
support and acknowledgment that we deserve as a community, especially
during this time. If oil development does occur, then the Kaktovik
people need to be involved because it is us who know the land best.
It's also important the other people around the country as well as
yourselves know that we are a community that use the land around us for
everyday purposes and we care just as much about what happens and only
want to see the best. It's our responsibility to look out for the
interest in our community rather than a person who's trying to take
over what is ours. I hope all of you see that whatever happens here,
whether ANWR opens or not that we need to have a say and take part in
the decision making. Thank you.
______
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included in the
record. Thank you.
[The video has been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
The Chairman. Mr. Akootchook.
STATEMENT OF REVEREND ISAAC AKOOTCHOOK, PRESIDENT, KAKTOVIK
NATIVE VILLAGE, KAKTOVIK, ALASKA
Mr. Akootchook. My name is Isaac Akootchook. Born in
Kaktovik 1922, and I still live here.
Welcome Governor, and senators from Outside, to see this,
our place. I say this in English for a little bit, so you
understand me.
(Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. He would like to thank you for being here,
and he would like to speak to the ANWR that you want to testify
for ANWR today, in front of you.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. You may want to help me, George, a little
bit with that because I'm not too familiar with the area where
the Demarcation is, but he wants to allude you to the areas
where they have grown up and known as the Federal lands that
are near the Demarcation.
Mr. Tagarook. The imaginary line we see on the map, Alaska
USA and Canada. The Demarcation.
The Interpreter. He wants to speak to those lands. Near the
Demarcation where between Canada and US.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. He does not want to see this land to be
put into wilderness area so that this land can also be used for
the young generations to come, so that they will be able to
utilize this land.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. His fathers before him have used this
area, and that near the runway, there are some old remains
where their forefathers have lived before.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. Their forefathers before them that have
been here have known this and have handed these hunting areas
down to them. He's speaking for himself, so the generations
before him, his forefathers, have used this area, and then he's
glad that you are here to be able to listen to him.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. And he's also thankful that you're here,
that you're able to listen firsthand, that when it's time to
vote on this issue, that you've come here to listen to the
concerns that everybody needs to be heard.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. He also wants to be able to work with the
industry and that so that it does not harm their way of life,
and that it should be worked to a point where everybody can
live harmoniously together with the industry and the people
that lives here in the community, and thanks the people that
are listening and that are able to help them to get this far.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. Thank you, he said.
[the statement of Mr. Akootchook follows:]
Statement of Isaac Akootchook, President, Kaktovik Native Village,
Kaktovik, Alaska
My name is Isaac Akootchook. I am the Reverend at the Kaktovik
Presbyterian Church. I'm 81 years old and I am a life-,long resident of
the North Slope of Alaska and as such have traveled by dog sled in my
younger days, because that was the only mode of transportation at that
time. I have served on the Kaktovik City Council and have been Mayor of
Kaktovik. Currently, I am President of. the Native Village of Kaktovik.
I love this land and as I have stated in the Kaktovik video, I
believe that man was put on this earth to use the land. If anything
happens here in our homelands; then we need to be involved. I want this
place to be a useful place for my children and grandchildren and great-
grandchildren.
I wish to speak about the land and the people and how we fit
together to make this place our home. The land and the people and the
animals are all important and we want to take care of this land the
best way we know how.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak here in my home about the
things. that affect my life directly. We appreciate the chance to have
our voices heard.
______
The Chairman. I thank you very much. Thank all the panel
for their testimony.
I would like to ask Mr. Akootchook a couple of questions,
if I may.
Your people, your forefathers, have been here for many,
many years. Did they always hunt with snow machines and rifles
and did they live in heated buildings like this?
Mr. Akootchook. When I grown up, when I grown up, when we
have no electricity, at all. And just use driftwood and a sod
house. That's what we live when I was growing up.
The Chairman. And you lived in this community?
Mr. Akootchook. Same place, 1922 until today.
The Chairman. The reason I ask you is that one of the
things that continually comes up, the opponents of any kind of
development here talk about wanting things to be the way that
they always were, and wanting to maintain it in some kind of a
natural setting.
Since the day that your people came here, if it was 10,000
years ago, 20,000 years ago, they changed this area, just being
here. The first time they put up a house, the first time they
built a fire, the first time that they hunted a caribou, they
permanently changed this area. And I look at the young lady who
testified and think about her future and how things would
change for her.
Would you say that it's for the betterment of you, your
people, the next generation, to have development here?
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. From his--from the past, when they have
lived, it has changed considerably from the time he is alluding
to, from times past. It has changed very much.
Mr. Akootchook. 1938 and '39. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. He's alluding to the years that he just
mentioned, 1939--
Mr. Akootchook. '38.
The Interpreter. '38, that in those years, their lives were
in a state of starvation, where they didn't have too much. This
was near the Colville area.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke native language.).
The Interpreter. In the 1940's, they moved from the
Colville or the Kutchik area to Kaktovik, and they have
remained here since.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. He's very satisfied with the changes that
now has occurred to up to date for that they are enjoying the
heat in their homes, the schools, and also what the
government--I think he's alluding to the North Slope Borough--
providing the necessary things that they are now enjoying. He's
very happy with those changes.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. And the education that the young folks
have received, they now understand how to run the governments,
they know how to run the schools, and they are very--are
knowledgeable enough to run these things when they become of
age.
The Chairman. Thank you. And just finally, I ask Ms.
VanHatten, obviously, this area is very important to you, and
it's something you care about. Those of us that are here come
in and go, you know, we'll fly in, we'll fly out. We'll be here
for a few hours, some of us may never have the opportunity to
come back here, but for you, you've got a little different
perspective on that.
If you would, what do you see as your future here? What
would you--what would you like?
Ms. VanHatten. I would like--well, I would want ANWR to
open, I think. But if it did, I think that a lot more things
would happen here, and everyone would get--everyone would just
benefit from it.
And I also would like to just see more young people taking
part in the native ways, more people learning how to live off
the land. As they said, we don't want to go back to the old
ways, but we do want to preserve a lot of the old ways.
And I would like to see the young people being able to take
action in it and being able to take action in stuff like this
because we are the future, we are the next generation. And I
just hope to see that the young people take part in it and
learn from everyone around us so that our community would
benefit.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Rehberg.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for being with us today. And point out
to you that President Clinton, in the closing days of his
administration, created a new monument in the state of Montana,
which is where I'm from, that included 81,000 acres of private
property. 81,000 acres.
So your acreage is at risk. And currently, there's a
movement afoot to shut down snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park. So
there could be an opportunity for them to come in because there
are no promises in our form of government.
Democracy is kind of ugly that way. We can promise you one
thing today, but the next Congress hasn't made that same
promise, so they can undo that and do something else.
And so I think if you're adamant in your position, which I
believe you ought to be, always watch what's going on down
there because they can also eliminate your snowmobiles.
Mr. Tagarook--am I pronouncing that correctly?
Mr. Tagarook. Well, you can call me Ray, call me Jay.
Mr. Rehberg. How about George? Can I call you George?
Mr. Tagarook. Yes.
Mr. Rehberg. You're the one that brought up your natives to
the south. Now, are you speaking specifically of the Arctic
Village, that area?
Mr. Tagarook. Anybody south of the Brooks Range. The
nonnative. Those who live there.
Mr. Rehberg. I'm looking at a map that has Gwich'in
historic oil leases. Is that some of them?
Mr. Tagarook. Might be, yes. Could be considered LA, Lower
Alaska.
Mr. Rehberg. Is there enough--is there oil and gas
production in--on their property?
Mr. Tagarook. They did back in, I think, the early '70's.
Mr. Rehberg. But not now?
Mr. Tagarook. I have no idea. I think the interior,
interior people are--explored for gas. But I don't know which
tribe it is. Probably Tanana or Doyon.
Mr. Rehberg. So you don't know if they are proponents for
opening your area for oil production? You don't know if they
have taken a position? Or do you believe that those that have
an opportunity to have oil production on their property are in
opposition to yours?
Mr. Tagarook. Yeah, they are in opposition specific to take
over their own lands that they want to develop, you know.
Mr. Rehberg. They would like to develop their lands, but
have they--
Mr. Tagarook. I wouldn't have any opposition on that.
Mr. Rehberg. OK. But have they taken a position on your--
Mr. Tagarook. Yes. I'm not a village shareholder, I'm a
shareholder from the Village of Barrow. So I can't speak for
the corporation here.
Mr. Rehberg. OK. I guess what I was trying to get at was as
a point that you would like to see oil development on your
property, but perhaps there's those that are south of here that
don't want you to have oil production on your property, but do
have oil production on their property.
And I think it goes back to something you said that is
extremely powerful and that is your U.S. Congress is keeping
you from economic development, which, in fact, keeps you from
economic opportunities.
Mr. Tagarook. Yes.
Mr. Rehberg. And I think that point needs to be made.
Mr. Tagarook. Yes.
Mr. Rehberg. Mr.--Herman. I apologize.
Mr. Aishanna. You can call me Her Man, if you want.
Mr. Rehberg. I'm getting there. Is there any corporation
property that is outside of that 91,000 acres?
Mr. Aishanna. 92.
Mr. Rehberg. 92,000? Do you have a financial interest in
any properties outside of that 92,000 acres? As a corporation?
Mr. Aishanna. No.
Mr. Rehberg. You don't. So it's all this little area around
the community here. OK.
Let me ask you, then, you support opening up. Do you--do
you believe that there's any irreparable damage to the culture
of your people or your animals by opening this property?
Because that was the statement that was made by the
opponents to opening it, there was irreparable damage to the
culture of you and your wildlife. Do you believe that's a true
statement?
Mr. Aishanna. What we've been trying to work on is if it
does open to development, Kaktovik would like to be at the
table in the planning stages. And that way, we would like to
minimize the impact, minimize the spoils. I'm pretty sure we
can work things out.
Mr. Rehberg. You can?
Mr. Aishanna. Yes.
Mr. Rehberg. So the benefits outweigh the potential change
in your culture, similar to what Chairman Pombo was talking
about where some of the change in your culture was changed by
snow machines.
Mr. Aishanna. They definitely have their own regulations,
they have to follow every--every set of rules if they are going
to work here. And we would like them to do everything they are
supposed to do. Protect the environment.
Mr. Rehberg. Well, just to clear up the record, then I'll
stop with this, Mr. Chairman, there were statements made about
the smoke at Prudhoe Bay. It all falls within the Clean Air
Act.
Mr. Aishanna. Pardon?
Mr. Rehberg. It falls within the protections of the Clean
Air Act.
Mr. Aishanna. Yes.
Mr. Rehberg. So I think that there's one thing our
regulatory agencies are pretty good at is controlling business.
Mr. Aishanna. Yeah.
Mr. Rehberg. So I could perhaps alleviate some of your
fears.
Mr. Aishanna. I've been hearing a lot about new technology.
And instead of spreading out everything all over the place, I
think it can be centralized someplace, so it won't be--it won't
be like a Christmas tree.
Mr. Rehberg. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Renzi.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Honorable Her Man. You have been a captain at the sea,
you've fished these waters. The statement was made earlier that
if we bring drilling and extracting oil from the land, that you
won't be able to fish.
You know the neighbors, you know how well these neighbors
have been at Prudhoe Bay, if they have been good neighbors or
not.
Will you be able to fish if we are allowed to go on the
Federal lands and extract the oil?
Mr. Aishanna. On ANWR?
Mr. Renzi. How would the oil--how would we taking oil out
of ANWR affect your fishing? It's been stated that you--
Mr. Aishanna. Probably people with big--big smarts.
Mr. Renzi. Yeah.
Mr. Aishanna. I wouldn't recommend they go through the
ocean now.
Mr. Renzi. Yeah. So you don't see it affecting your fishing
at all, then? You don't see us drilling--
Mr. Aishanna. No.
Mr. Renzi. --on ANWR affecting your fishing, do you?
Mr. Aishanna. No, I don't think the caribou is so blind
they just run into a pipeline.
Mr. Renzi. I've listened, Mr. Akootchook, to your
testimony.
The Interpreter. Akootchook.
Mr. Renzi. Isaac. I'm the father of 12 children, seven boys
and five girls. In Arizona, I thought I was Her Man. But one of
the things that's interesting is that in your philosophy, you
talk about how the earth and the land has been given to us to
take care of. It's been given to us also to take the resources
from and to use the land. The idea that the oil within the land
also is a resource.
If we set this up properly, if we give you the laws that
allow you to require the best technology to be used, to require
that we restore the land, and leave it, that we don't impact
the wildlife, that studies be done, both from--from both sides,
studies be looked at, is it your viewpoint that we should move
forward and begin to use these resources, not just to leave
them, lock people out from using them?
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. He believes in that philosophy that what
was given to us should be utilized by all.
Mr. Renzi. That's beautiful.
Mr. Akootchook. (Spoke in native language.).
The Interpreter. And we all understand that this will be
for the benefit of all our people, and we are now, all of us
are just talking about it and saying it, but it is something
that when done right, can be to the benefit and for all the
people.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you. Morgan, in 20 years I want to come
back and I believe you'll be the mayor. I also represent one of
the largest Native American peoples of the United States, the
Navajo people, the Grand Canyon, in Northern Arizona.
I was able to learn that when we brought water into the
Navajo lands that were dry, and they were able to grow a good
cattle crop, they were able to grow their traditional corns,
that that provided a--an economic impact, it provided monies
that they were able to use to preserve the traditional ways of
life, to preserve their languages, to hire more teachers, to
teach their culture in their schools.
So I leave you, as I know you are going to be a leader in
the future, with the idea that if we are allowed to do this,
that you take some of the monies and you use it to protect your
heritage and your culture, and all the life, the traditions
that you mention. And I appreciate your statement today. Thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Nunes.
Mr. Nunes. Mr. Tagarook.
Mr. Tagarook. Yes.
Mr. Nunes. You were talking about the caribou. There's been
some discussion about the caribou. Do you hunt caribou here?
Mr. Tagarook. Yes, I do. I hunt both Porcupine and Arctic
Central herd, yes.
Mr. Nunes. OK. And can you explain to us, in your opinion,
what would happen if you did develop some of this land for oil
drilling, what would happen to the caribou?
Mr. Tagarook. What would happen to the caribou? Well, I
think the development and wildlife are coexistent, you know,
they could co-exist together.
The Porcupine caribou herd, like I said, is here 40, 45
days a year. And when they go south to their wintering area,
they have to cross a major highway, they cross a highway in
Canada, some--some oil industry infrastructures, and the people
there hunt them on roads and on the highways would have to take
either a boat or a snow machine to go out and--to go out and
get them.
Mr. Nunes. Prudhoe Bay, in the area where the pipeline is
now, what has the development there done to the caribou
population? Or have you hunted in that area before?
Mr. Tagarook. Not so much over by Prudhoe, no, just east of
Prudhoe, you know, about 20 miles. I think it's a safe haven
for the caribou because of the pipeline, the predators relief,
mosquito relief, and I'm sure they will coexist.
Mr. Nunes. So would you agree that some of the studies have
shown that the caribou population has increased near the
pipeline? Would that be a true statement?
Mr. Tagarook. That could be a true statement with the facts
and figures that I've been hearing. With the Central Arctic
caribou, you know, they are less than 3,000, now they have
multiplied fivefold. So--
Mr. Nunes. So that's true--that's a true statement?
Mr. Tagarook. That's a true statement.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you. Mr. Kaleak?
Mr. Kaleak. Kaleak.
Mr. Nunes. Kaleak. Do you also hunt caribou?
Mr. Kaleak. Yes.
Mr. Nunes. And do you fish?
Mr. Kaleak. I fish. Whale.
Mr. Nunes. Whale. What would this potential development do
to your hunting, fishing? Would it hurt it? Would it help?
Mr. Kaleak. No. I don't think it would have an impact.
Only, the only thing I would be worried about is the
stipulations on hunting near an oil rig or a pipeline. If
there's a way you can work around that, I mean, I'm all for it.
And I know there's a way to work around that.
Mr. Nunes. OK. OK. And maybe I can ask this to both of you
because both of you snowmobile, I assume.
Mr. Kaleak. Yes.
Mr. Nunes. H.R. 770, which is better known as the Markey
bill? Is that right?
The Chairman. Yeah.
Mr. Nunes. Are you aware that if this bill does pass, that
snowmobiling would be banned and you guys would not be able to
use your snowmobile?
Mr. Kaleak. No, I wasn't aware of that.
Mr. Nunes. And airplanes.
Mr. Kaleak. No, I was not aware of that.
Mr. Nunes. And I think that's something I was made aware of
today that I find interesting.
Mr. Kaleak. Until he mentioned it, before there was talk of
deleting that.
Mr. Nunes. So it would not be a good thing for snowmobiles
to be banned in this area?
Mr. Kaleak. No, that wouldn't. I mean, we depend on our
snow machines, and iron dog, if you will. And our boats, we
depend on all that to get our subsistence food to feed our
children and our elders. And that's why everybody, almost
everybody here has a snow machine so we can utilize that to go
hunting.
Mr. Nunes. I understand. Thank you very much. I have one
quick question then I think my time is up.
The Chairman. Go ahead, if you want to finish.
Mr. Nunes. Mr. Isaac--
The Interpreter. Akootchook.
Mr. Nunes. Akootchook. I just want to thank you for being
here today and testifying. And just for my background and a
historical perspective, how many generations does your family
go back, that you know of, in this area?
Mr. Akootchook. I'm a grand, grand, grand, and third now.
The Interpreter. Three. Third generation.
Mr. Akootchook. My dad is beyond, four more and beyond from
my father's side. But I don't know the name because I'm born in
1922.
The Interpreter. So four fathers before him have been here
before him.
Mr. Nunes. Four fathers?
The Interpreter. Four fathers before him, have been here
before him.
Mr. Nunes. That you know of. Only that you know of.
Mr. Akootchook. Just know my father, but my mom's side is
grandma and granddad. I have a picture of them.
Mr. Nunes. So many years. Thank you very much. Thank you
all of you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Miss Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have been sitting here and listening very intently to
everyone who is at the table, and I have to tell you, I
represent a small island in the Pacific very much like this
group of people here today.
In fact, it's brought back many memories just to see you at
a witness table here, from you, sir, 81 years old, to Morgan, a
young student in high school. It is truly a cross section of
the community.
And in Guam, we were under the Spanish for many years, and
then the United States, and just like you, many years ago, we
didn't have a lot of opportunities. Now, we're a thriving U.S.
Community where our young generation go on to colleges all over
the United States and the world, and we're given opportunities
that their forefathers would never have ever realized.
We also have our own language, our own culture, and we're
preserving it right along with progressing. So I truly am
impressed.
Morgan, you are such a beautiful young girl. Are there more
like you here? Very beautiful.
And I enjoyed hearing Reverend Isaac and his wealth of
experience over the years, and he's truly a very respected
person here in the community, you can tell from the audience.
And of course, the others have been mayors, presidents of
different councils, and so you have a lot of experience under
your belt. So Mr. Chairman, we truly have a cross section of
representation from this region.
I wanted to ask one question, and I was very impressed with
8 hours of snowmobiling to get here?
Mr. Tagarook. From Deadhorse, yeah, 131 miles. 131.3 miles.
Ms. Bordallo. That is awesome, sir.
Mr. Tagarook. Do you want to go for a ride?
Ms. Bordallo. I would love to do that. But I want to ask,
are you the fireman? You're both Georges, right? Are you the
fireman?
Mr. Tagarook. Yes. I've been a fire chief for 20 years.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Now, I was just curious. You know,
you said the water is solid. Water is scarce.
Mr. Tagarook. It's pretty hard to fight fires at 40 below.
Ms. Bordallo. I was going to say, how do you fight fires
here if one occurs?
Mr. Tagarook. You keep the fire truck inside the fire
station where it's warm, the water is 70 degrees, and when you
take it out at 40 below, the temperatures drop, you have to put
the fire out really fast.
Ms. Bordallo. So you really do have quite a bit of water on
hand?
Mr. Tagarook. Yeah. And when your hands get cold, you can
squirt water inside your gloves and it will warm up your hands.
Ms. Bordallo. Oh, I see. All right.
All right. Now, to all of you here, the five of you, of
course, the interpreter, what I'm gathering is that you want to
open up this area for development, you want to know that it's
environmentally safe, and you want a voice in it; is this
correct?
Mr. Tagarook. Yes.
Mr. Akootchook. That's right.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
Ms. VanHatten. Actually, I do want it to be open, but when
they said that the chance that we can't use snow machines or
our planes, I think--I don't think it should be open because
our tradition and our culture is our first priority, and that's
what needs to be--that's at the top of our priorities. And if
that is threatened, then I don't think that they--
The Chairman. If you--we're actually talking about two
different bills. One would put it into the--under the
Wilderness Act, and that would restrict your ability to do
certain things within the wilderness area.
Ms. VanHatten. OK. All right. I was unclear about that.
The Chairman. The other bill is Mr. Young's bill, which is
designed to open the area up for potential development. So it's
two separate bills that we're actually taking testimony on.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, Mr.
Akootchook, thank you for being here and speaking on behalf of
the elders. And to you, Morgan, thank you for speaking on
behalf of, as you say, the next generation.
And as I look around the room and see all these--these
young children and the babies and recognize that what we are
doing today, conversations we're having, and ultimately the
votes that happen 6,000 miles from here really affect your life
tomorrow.
And perhaps the reverend, in 20 years, might not be around
to testify, but you'll be testifying and your children will be
testifying. And this has been going on for 20 years now. So I
think we're at that point where we need to stop just talking
about it and figuring out what's going on.
I think it was you, Mr. Tagarook, you mentioned that--I
believe your statement was the environmentalists are making
money off ANWR through, you mention, photographs and books, but
the people who live here are not.
Mr. Tagarook. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. And that's a very, very telling
statement because as we drove into Kaktovik from the airport,
you've got a small community here, you've got a school, looks
pretty nice, you've got a nice community center here.
We've heard from you, Mr. Aishanna that you're a fisherman
and there's a subsistence life-style that goes on here, but how
are the residents of Kaktovik earning their living right now?
What are the opportunities for you and for your children and
for some of these babies that are here?
Mr. Tagarook. It's seasonal construction like water and
sewer projects that has been here for about 2 years now, we're
on the third year. The borough has the municipal services, the
water, sewer, the water drainage, the sewage pickup, they have
the utilities, the maintenance of roads, airports, landfills.
Some of the services that are funded by the borough through
the Kaktovik infrastructure and the industry, the property
taxes for the city, or the villages, and those are declining.
And if we could get the NPR-A opening up, there will be some
infrastructure attached on that, along with ANWR opening up,
you know, boost the Canning River, it will help.
Senator Murkowski. For the most part, then, the jobs that
are here, the people that are in this room who have those jobs,
are primarily borough related in some way?
Mr. Tagarook. Some are borough related and the corporation,
as well.
Senator Murkowski. Corporation related.
Mr. Tagarook. In the school district, I don't know about,
10 percent borough, probably 60 percent, somewhere in there.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you this, and I'll direct it
both to you, Mr. Tagarook, as well as Mr. Akootchook. Before we
saw oil development on the North Slope, and this is Prudhoe,
this is going back to--to predating 1980, what--what was here
in the community of Kaktovik? Did you have a school? Did you
have a community center? Did you have a clinic? What was the
community like before we had the resources from oil development
up here?
Mr. Akootchook. We started with our native village of
Kaktovik, coming up--we have our words. (Spoke in native
language.).
The Interpreter. (Spoke in native language.)
Mr. Akootchook. The Air Force.
The Interpreter. Air Force was here.
Mr. Akootchook. 19--1947, after the Second World War, the
Air Force set up here patrolling back and forth.
The Interpreter. There was no hospital, no school. There
was no community center.
The Chairman. Was there electricity?
Mr. Akootchook. No electricity, no.
The Chairman. No heat?
Mr. Akootchook. North Slope Borough and Dew Line started,
and that's what we have.
The Interpreter. Then we got the heat, the heat to the
city.
Mr. Akootchook. We usually used driftwood--
The Interpreter. Driftwood for heat.
Mr. Akootchook. For heat.
The Chairman. Driftwood?
Mr. Akootchook. Would haul--haul wood and haul ice for
water. That was the way we'd grown up.
Senator Murkowski. And so until we had development, oil
development off the North Slope, which was about 20 to 25 years
ago, you had no electricity, you had no school.
Mr. Akootchook. Maybe the electricity started maybe
around--maybe just about--
Senator Murkowski. Just about that time? So I think it was
your testimony that--
Mr. Aishanna. I think you forgot I was buying electricity
from you for a while.
Senator Murkowski. It's important to put this in context in
terms of a time line, for these people up at this table, they
come from states where in their state, they have had
electricity for a hundred and some odd years. They have had
water systems and sewer systems and schools and fire stations.
And so what you have now has been brought about through oil
development, and it has allowed you to have a quality of life
that is, as all of you, I think you pointed out, it allows you
the opportunity to--to speak your languages more often, sing
more often, dance more often, and truly be part of the culture
and tradition instead of, I think you used the term, Mr.
Kaleak, it was a wretched world. It was a world of starvation.
So we've come a long way in 25 years.
Mr. Akootchook. Yes.
Mr. Aishanna. 30 years.
Senator Murkowski. 30 years. Mr. Aishanna, you mentioned
something in your testimony, and I'm going to take your
testimony back to Washington, D.C. and make sure that it's
entered in the record back there.
Because you state that you're neither for oil or gas
development, your position is far more sensible than that, and
you say I want--we wonder how anyone could be for or against
something they do not know or understand. Nobody knows yet what
oil and gas development east of the Canning would mean, nobody
has yet defined it.
And yet we're dealing with people in Washington, D.C. who
will never know this area, they will not understand what it
means to you, and what you're asking for is to have it
developed responsibly, and have the input that Morgan has
suggested, that you've all suggested.
So your words are very, very compelling. And I appreciate
the thought that was put into them.
Mr. Aishanna. Yeah. A lot when I was back there, a lot of
people from all over the world that came up to Kaktovik. And
it's the same question all the time. Are you for or are you
against.
Senator Murkowski. And your response is?
Mr. Aishanna. I haven't made up my mind yet.
Senator Murkowski. But you're going to keep an eye on it?
Mr. Aishanna. Yeah, I'm not jumping to conclusions right
away. I want to check them out first.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Akootchook. Mr. Chairman, could we say one more before
we close up? Because I think these here are up to me. And I
heard something about the Skidoo travel.
We would oppose that because they are not going to go
hunting without Skidoos, you know. Back and forth from 70, 80
miles up. We have to look at it more.
So we used--we work with the wildlife people, we have Fish
& Wildlife up here, and those people. We always come together,
we talk about lot those things.
The Interpreter. He wanted me to kind of elaborate, I know
he's pretty hard on his English, but he really wanted to
mention again before he closed that he would like to thank the
panel here that's sitting with him and you folks.
And that he wants to make it known again that he's very
opposed to H.R. 772, which would designate the area,
wilderness, which would prohibit the use of snow machines for
travel and hunting. Because they are subsistence hunters, and
that they really need to have the use of the land for travel by
snow machine. And that they are opposing H.R. 772.
Mr. Tagarook. Also, Mr. Pombo, before you close I want to
add to the record the testimonies of Fenton Rexford, the
Kaktovik Corporation, for the record.
The Chairman. Without objection--
Mr. Tagarook. And the testimony of Richard Glenn, from--the
Vice-President of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. And our In
This Place documentary, Operational Guide For Those Wishing to
Work in the Country of Kaktovikmiut, it's a working document.
We have had it revised, but we haven't changed any of it yet,
so...
The Chairman. Without objection, they will be included in
the record..
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rexford follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Fenton O. Rexford, President,
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation
Honorable Chairman Pombo, members of the Committee, thank you for
allowing me to submit my written comments on H.R. 39 and H.R. 770 for
the record. My name is Fenton Okomailak Rexford and I am the President
of my village corporation Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC). KIC is
the surface land titleholder to 92,000 acres of privately owned land
within the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. On
behalf of my Native corporation I write in support of H.R. 39 and in
strong opposition to H.R. 770.
I am a life-long resident of Kaktovik and I intend to grow old
here. I can compare what life in Kaktovik was like prior to oil
development on the North Slope to the quality of life we have today
because of my personal experience. I am an elected official locally and
regionally, and have held the office of President of KIC for 8 years. I
have spent time listening to the people of Kaktovik and to the
residents across the North Slope and the majority support responsible
development of the Coastal Plain of ANWR. I have spent time educating
Congress on this issue, with a considerable amount of my time consumed
in Washington, D.C. I am very familiar with this issue and have been
fighting the misrepresentations of the opposition for over 10 years.
Therefore, I write with the institutional knowledge my people have
about ANWR.
BACKGROUND
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation is an Alaska Native village
corporation established through the 1971 Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA). Instead of emulating the Indian reservation
system of the Lower 48, ANCSA intended to create organizations that
provided an economic base for Alaska Natives. Thus, the State was
divided into twelve regions, each with a regional corporation. Within
each region ANCSA also provided the local villages with a corporation,
and it was out of that structure KIC was born.
The membership within KIC and its regional corporation, Arctic
Slope Regional Corporation, are Inupiat Eskimos. KIC represents 110
shareholders, while ASRC represents roughly eight thousand
shareholders.
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation owns 92,000 acres of surface land
within the Coastal Plain of ANWR. Our regional corporation, Arctic
Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), owns the subsurface rights to that
land.
The Inupiat people of Kaktovik use the lands in and around ANWR to
support our traditional subsistence lifestyle. The land and sea are our
gardens and we respect them. We subsist off of the land and sea. As
such, we would not support responsible development if it adversely
affected our Inupiaq traditional subsistence way of life.
H.R. 39
On behalf of the KIC shareholders and the majority of the residents
of Kaktovik, I write in support of H.R. 39. Responsible development of
ANWR's Coastal Plain is a matter of self-determination for my people.
It will enable the entire North Slope region to provide essential
services taken for granted by people from the Lower 48, even places
like urban Alaska. Responsible ANWR development means my people will
have the ability to provide running water and flush toilets throughout
the region, including Kaktovik. I grew up in the days of the ``quqtaq''
or pleasantly stated, ``honeybucket.'' For your information a
honeybucket is usually a five-gallon bucket with a seat top attached
provided to humans to release their waste. Once full, the bucket is
carried from the bathroom, through the house and to the front door
where a collection agent disposes of the waste. When the bucket is full
there is always the possibility of spillage onto the floor. This
increases the risk to our young children, especially our infants to
serious illnesses caused by unsanitary living conditions. The luxury of
a flush toilet and running water decreases our risk of exposure to
health hazards such as hepatitis.
Responsible development also means access to local health care
facilities and professionals. Our region is vast and covers roughly
89,000 square miles. With eight tiny villages within our region, the
only access we have to a hospital is 360 air miles from Kaktovik to
Barrow. The flight time to Barrow in a twin-engine 1900 Beechcraft is
roughly 90 minutes, weather permitting. It is very expensive to travel
to Barrow and often difficult for families to cover the costs in a
village with little economy. Localized health care provides access for
our people to receive medical attention for minor ailments. However, in
the case of an emergency, the local health clinic is the first line of
defense for containing damages, and at the very least they provide the
triage necessary to sustain a patient until emergency transport
arrives.
Further, development of the Coastal Plain enables our community to
sustain a local school. Growing up Kaktovik did not have a school after
eighth grade and as a result, I attended high school at Chemawa Indian
School in Oregon to receive my high school education. This was common
practice for people of my generation in this region.
Finally, responsible development will continue to provide search
and rescue, police and fire protection for our North Slope communities.
The weather conditions within the North Slope are harsh and at times
life threatening. As we continue to practice our traditional
subsistence lifestyle, we take comfort in knowing that if we are
misguided in our journeys, our region has the capability of conducting
search and rescue missions.
We have seen Prudhoe Bay oil development evolve in the last 30
years. My people also know industry and wildlife can coexist. For
example, the Central Arctic Caribou herd, home to the Prudhoe Bay
region, numbered around 3,000 in the 1960's. Today the population is
thriving above and beyond 30,000. Recently caribou researchers have
tracked caribou from that herd as far south within the hunting grounds
of the Gwich'in of Arctic Village.
My people have strong confidence in the North Slope Borough's
ability to protect our natural wildlife environment and resources from
adverse impact. I must state that local input is necessary to continue
along this forward path.
Responsible development of the Coastal Plain of ANWR is a matter of
self-determination for the Inupiat. My people want to champion their
own causes. Opening the Coastal Plain for development will allow that
to happen. Otherwise, we will continue to be refugees on our own land.
H.R. 770
KIC is strongly opposed to ``Wilderness'' designation of the
Coastal Plain of ANWR. President Jimmy Carter acknowledged its
potential and in his wisdom, did not authorize the Coastal Plain as
Wilderness when signing ANILCA into law.
Wilderness designation means zero growth for our community. If in
twenty years our community chooses to connect itself to Prudhoe Bay
through the construction of a road, we will not be able to do so
because Kaktovik will be surrounded by Wilderness.
Wilderness implies the area is untouched by man. Kaktovik is a
village with a population of roughly 260 people. Long before any
contact with the Western world my ancestors used this area to live, to
exist. The United States government constructed DEWLine sites all along
the Alaska's Coastal Plain during the cold war in an effort to detect
oncoming attacks from the Russians. This area is far from untouched by
man. Those statements are misleading.
Wilderness designation will prohibit any type of economic growth
for the community. If our residents were interested in providing any
form of ecotourism or wilderness guiding, the Wilderness designation
would prohibit our residents from providing such services in the
Wilderness area. Since our community is surrounded by Federal land,
Wilderness designation would prohibit ecotourism and guiding prospects
outside the boundaries of our Native-owned lands.
Couple the expensive travel to and from Kaktovik; a ban on road
construction connecting Kaktovik to Prudhoe Bay; with zero opportunity
for economic or community growth, we offer nothing to future
generations.
As a result of Prudhoe Bay development we are the last village on
the North Slope to receive running water and flush toilets. The new
village water and sewer line is currently under construction in
Kaktovik. In order to sustain the maintenance and operation of this
utilidor system, Kaktovik is in need of a stimulated local economy. If
we cannot support this system we will have to revert back to unsanitary
living conditions that pose a hazard to our health. Wilderness?!
Education in Alaska, especially Kaktovik, is very important. We
constantly encourage our children to do well in school, get an
education and/or formal training so they are better equipped to compete
in the labor market. As our children grow, attain an education and
acquire skills, they need opportunities that foster healthy
communities. Wilderness designation ensures zero growth potential for a
community surrounded by Federal land; and thus, Kaktovik will not have
the capacity to provide jobs for our residents including opportunities
for our young people we so encouraged. Instead, our most educated and
skilled residents will leave Kaktovik in search of other opportunities.
Wilderness will be the beginning of the end of Kaktovik as we know it
today. Rather than a healthy, thriving, educated, skilled community,
Kaktovik will be a community on the population decline. Wilderness
designation will suffocate our community into eventual extinction.
Wilderness?!
CONCLUSION
As you consider both H.R. 39 and H.R. 770, please understand that
the Inupiat people of Kaktovik, North Slope, residents of Alaska and
U.S. citizens support responsible development of ANWR. This is a matter
of self-determination for my people. I ask that you consider the facts
and disregard the comments intended to invoke emotion or mislead the
public. So often we hear about the opposition misrepresenting the local
opinion on ANWR. They would like you to believe the Inupiat do not
exist and the only indigenous group affected by ANWR development will
be the Gwich'in. The facts are the Inupiat people are indigenous to the
area and have been for thousands of generations. Kaktovik is the only
village within the entire 19.6 million acres of the Federally
recognized boundaries of ANWR. The majority of Kaktovik residents favor
H.R. 39 and oppose H.R. 770. We are the aboriginal environmentalists of
the North Slope and have deep respect for the land and all its
bounties. Therefore, we would not recommend development if it created
adverse impact on our traditional subsistence lifestyle.
Chairman Pombo, members of the Committee, I thank you from the
bottom of my heart for holding this hearing in my hometown. I
appreciate the fact you value our opinion and chose to conduct a
hearing here. Quyanaqpak for all of your hard work, effort and time on
this issue.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glenn follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Richard Glenn, Vice President,
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
My name is Richard Glenn. I am the Vice President of Lands for
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). I write on behalf of ASRC to
offer testimony in support of H.R. 39, which would allow
environmentally sound leasing of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and remove the legal hindrances
preventing the economic self-determination of the Inupiat Eskimos of
Alaska's North Slope. I offer additional testimony of behalf of ASRC
against H.R. 770, which would establish ``wilderness'' status for the
Coastal Plain of ANWR, and shut down the rights of the Inupiat people
to exercise economic self-determination on Native-owned lands in the
ANWR Coastal Plain.
ASRC is the Alaska Native-owned regional corporation representing
the Inupiat Eskimos of Alaska's North Slope. ASRC owns surface and
subsurface title to certain Alaskan North Slope lands. This ownership
stems from an earlier claim of aboriginal title--covering the entire
Alaskan North Slope--that was eventually settled in part by the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA). Under the terms of ANCSA,
ASRC's land selection rights, which amounted to a small fraction of
what was originally claimed as aboriginal title, were further limited
by what at the timer were pre-existing state- and Federal-selected
lands. ASRC lands now include the subsurface estate to 92,160 acres of
lands within the 1.2 million-acre ANWR Coastal Plain. The ASRC-owned
subsurface estate lies under and adjacent to the village of Kaktovik.
The Kaktovik Native Village Corporation, KIC, holds the surface title
to these same lands.
More than eight thousand Inupiat Eskimos comprise the membership of
ASRC, most of who live on the Coastal Plain of Alaska's North Slope in
communities scattered from the Canadian border in the east to the
Chukchi Sea in the west, covering an area about the size of the state
of Minnesota. Our people live close to the land and sea and depend on
the resources they provide, including caribou, fish, seabirds and
marine mammals. In addition, we also depend on jobs, as today's
subsistence lifestyle demands a mix of financial and traditional
resources. As a result, the values of the ASRC membership reflect a
balance of a need for economic self-determination and respect for the
environment. This blend of development and stewardship is reflected in
a core value statement of ASRC, which states that ASRC shall ``develop
our lands and resources by means that respect Inupiat subsistence
values and ensure proper care of the environment, habitat and
wildlife.''
H.R. 39: A Balance of Stewardship and Responsible Development
The Inupiat people have contributed to responsible North Slope oil
and gas development. Thirty years ago, our people strongly opposed all
forms of oil and gas exploration in our region. We feared it. With our
regard for the environment in mind, we created strong permitting and
zoning policies within our local borough municipal government. We were
not complacent with oil development, we were--and still remain--
vigilant. In the face of strong local ordinances, oil industry
exploration and development methods have improved over the last twenty-
five years. In fact, the North Slope oil and gas practices of today are
the best examples of environmentally responsible hydrocarbon
development. Industry practices in our region still are not perfect,
and we remain vigilant, in an effort to continually improve their
performance in our environment. We are confident that with the passage
of House Resolution 39 and the appropriate level of local consultation
and control, the Coastal Plain of ANWR, and the Native-owned lands
contained therein, can be explored and developed in a way that protects
natural resources for everyone.
Economic Self-Determination for Alaska's Inupiat People
In northern and northwestern Alaska, there is no industry except
for resource extraction. The land is too cold for agriculture, and too
remote for refined manufactured products. In addition, the way of life
in our rural communities has with time become a combination of
subsistence and cash economies. Hence, our people are needful of both a
healthy natural environment and access to gainful employment. Over
time, we have assisted with the development of North Slope oil and gas
resources through our own Native-owned oil field service company
subsidiaries, which have employed and developed the skills of our
people. In addition, we have made efforts to seek title to subsurface
and surface lands, including the KIC lands acreage, that hold natural
resource potential, that we might benefit from the oil and gas industry
as a resource owner. As it now stands we are prevented from developing
our Kaktovik-area lands due to Section 1003 of ANILCA. The exploration
and development of the Coastal Plain of ANWR, including the KIC lands,
then represents an issue of economic self-determination for our people.
In addition, our local government and village residents realize
great benefits from the sustained presence of the oil and gas industry
on the North Slope. Because of the industry practices developed over
time, our residents live in a land with few environmental hazards, and
have begun to build in their communities infrastructure that is taken
for granted in other parts of the country. Facilities for education,
health care, police and fire protection, reliable power generation, and
simple sanitation have all been initiated by the North Slope Borough,
thanks to a revenue stream generated by the taxation of property
including oilfield infrastructure. Our communities are cleaner and
safer; our people are living longer and are less dependent on Federal
assistance thanks to responsible North Slope oil and gas development.
Opposition to H.R. 770
ASRC is opposed to ``wilderness'' designation for the Coastal Plain
of ANWR. Establishing ``wilderness'' status for the Coastal Plain would
permanently remove the Inupiat Eskimos' right to develop, should they
choose to do so, their Native-owned lands. By attempting to create
``wilderness'' out of the ANWR Coastal Plain, H.R. 770 would shut down
the right of the Inupiat Eskimo people to do what they want on their
own lands, and remove from them the promise of economic self-
determination that figured so prominently in the passage of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA).
In addition, as it now stands, the existing ``wilderness'' lands of
ANWR are already the cause of problems regarding subsistence and other
land uses for the residents of Kaktovik and our Inupiat Eskimo
shareholders. Our belief is that more ``wilderness'' status would mean
more problems. The Committee may not be aware that the setting aside of
large swaths of land in the name of conservation often has dramatic
unintended consequences on the subsistence and economic needs the
people of our region. We have learned in many instances, ranging from
the existing Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ``wilderness'' to the
enclaves of ``Special Management Areas'' in the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska to the Gates of the Arctic National Park, that set-aside
areas are often unnecessarily limiting. On the ANWR Coastal Plain, like
in other areas of the North Slope, an appropriate level of protection
can be afforded to our caribou, fish, waterfowl and other animals by
applying existing permitting rules and an earnest and reasonable
consultative process for any exploration and development.
ASRC thanks Chairman Pombo and the House Committee for its visit to
Alaska's North Slope, and hopes that the voice of Alaska's Inupiat
people will be heard and remembered when the Energy and Budget bills
are debated in our nation's Capitol.
______
[In This Place documentary, Operational Guide For Those
Wishing to Work in the Country of Kaktovikmiut, has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Ms. VanHatten. I had a question. Is it OK?
The Chairman. Yeah.
Ms. VanHatten. Earlier, he, Mr. Rehberg, had made a
statement that--
The Chairman. Just call him Denny.
Ms. VanHatten. --that many promises are made that aren't
kept, that aren't able to be kept. How can we change that? How
can--or why are promises continuing to be made about our
traditions to be protected that you guys know that might not be
kept? How can we--
Mr. Rehberg. That's a very good question, and it's by being
involved. They can't ignore you if you pay attention. Too many
people help pass a law and they go, whew, got that taken care
of. Now you don't need to pay attention anymore. When you're
not looking, they are doing something.
And you guys are all very involved, when you look around
this room, and as long as you all remain as involved as you
are, your interests will be considered and I think should take
precedent in Congress.
They really ought to be listening to you, and that point
has been made over and over here, that we hope to take back
your ideas, your concerns, your dreams, and your desire for a
future for your people. And hope to help Mr. Young be a
representative for you.
Ms. VanHatten. OK. Thanks.
The Chairman. Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. I would like to comment on that same thought.
In Guam, you know, during World War II, we asked for war
reparations from our government, and to this day, we have not
received it. You're looking at 55 years. And it has a lot to do
with our own fault because we did not continually go back and
air our concerns.
And now, of course, we do have a commission set up and
hopefully we'll be able to fund it and appoint the members, and
maybe something will be done to take the atrocities that were
committed with World War II and compensate our people for loss
of land and other things.
But you have to continue to be vigilant and you have to
watch out for these things. You know, they are considering your
future now, so just be sure that you have your voice and you
have your input.
The Chairman. Before we formally adjourn the hearing, I
would like to invite the mayor of the North Slope Borough, Mr.
George Ahmaogak. Mr. Mayor, if you want, you can just stand
here. Use the microphone.
STATEMENT OF MAYOR GEORGE AHMAOGAK, MAYOR,
NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH
Mr. Ahmaogak. I don't know if I'm going to need a mike. I'm
so used to being in public service, I know how to talk loud.
Thank you very much for this opportunity. We are biting at
the bit to want to come up here and talk. And we are the
residents of Kaktovik, giving that opportunity, to give their
testimony while we're sitting in back patiently, allow them to
finish.
But first, I would like to thank Members of Congress here
that came here to look these people in the eye, the residents,
and to hear from them firsthand. And I think that makes a world
of difference when you look people in the eye that you
represent, as elected leaders that you are, like I am, you've
got to look at these people and give them a chance to talk.
And that's civility. That's part of public process. And for
that, I commend you to let your ears hear exactly what these
residents are trying to say, what their positions are, relative
to 1002, and also the other bill that wants to designate ANWR
as a wilderness. And I commend you for doing that.
First, Mr. Chairman, members of the House Resources
Committee, other Members of Congress, Congressional staffers,
if there's any here, Senator Murkowski, thank you for coming.
Governor Murkowski, we're glad to see you over here. Glad that
you could come.
Mayor Tagarook, I also would like to introduce you before I
get started.
We have another mayor, Mayor Edith Worsbrott (ph)
representing the city of Barrow. Mayor. Mayor, welcome.
Also welcome all, again, give my regards to the residents
here of Kaktovik and this village.
My name is George Ahmaogak, Senior. I'm the mayor of the
North Slope Borough. I'm now serving my fifth term as being
mayor. Each term is 3 years, so in my lifetime as being in
public office, I've gone through a lot of oil and gas issues.
But the North Slope Borough is our regional government for
Northern Alaska. It is the Home Rule Government that was
created in 1972 under the Constitution of the State of Alaska,
as a home rule government.
We have a total of 69 million acres of jurisdiction. We
have eight villages, including with this Kaktovik that is here,
including Prudhoe and the total population across it, we've
been going as 10,000 to 12,000 people, so there's a lot of
elbow room within our jurisdiction.
I want to welcome you, all of you to the North Slope and to
the community of Kaktovik. The people you'll meet in this
village today have hosted many times dozens of congressional
visits over the years, and hundreds of fact-finding missions by
organizations of all kinds.
They have kept a pretty good sense of humor through it all.
And I think you'll find that they are still very friendly and
welcoming people.
I forgot to mention, excuse me, Mayor Lon Sonsalla. The
former mayor. Lon Sonsalla, and now the current mayor, right?
The current city mayor. Excuse me.
I think for the Committee, it's important--
(Applause.).
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ahmaogak follows:]
Statement of George N. Ahmaogak, Sr., Mayor, North Slope Borough
Mr. Chairman, members of the House Resources Committee, other
members of Congress, and Congressional staffers:
My name is George Ahmaogak, Sr., and I am the Mayor of the North
Slope Borough, which is the regional government for northern Alaska.
I want to welcome you to the North Slope and to the community of
Kaktovik. The people you will meet in this village today have hosted
dozens of Congressional visits over the years and hundreds of fact-
finding missions by organizations of all kinds. They have kept a pretty
good sense of humor through it all, and I think you'll find that
they're still very friendly and welcoming people.
It is important for you to realize that this village is the capital
city of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I know it sounds a little
strange to talk about a community in the midst of a wildlife refuge.
That's because there are really two ANWRs--the one you see in the ads
by environmental organizations, and the one that extends about as far
as you can see in every direction from here.
The first ANWR is beautiful mountain scenery that seems to go on
forever. It's a world of wildlife, a refuge from the noise and
disruption of human community. Obviously, you are not in that ANWR at
the moment.
You are here in the second ANWR. It is tundra, and old military
sites, and Eskimos who have lived and hunted and survived around here
for thousands of years. You won't see this ANWR on the Sierra Club
posters. That's because it's not really a refuge; it's a land of many
uses. Those uses predate its designation as a refuge and, in some
cases, predate the founding of the United States.
This is Eskimo country. It has a thriving village whose residents
work at local jobs and travel in all directions to hunt for caribou,
bowhead whales and all the other animal species that have always
sustained our people. This is the way we live. It is the nature of our
culture, and nothing is going to change that.
The Sierra Club would probably be happier if we stopped hunting and
fishing. We'd be happier if they stopped floating down all the rivers
in ANWR, disrupting the wildlife that we depend on. But we can all get
along if we acknowledge two ANWRs and if we allow both to exist.
That seems to be what Congress had in mind when it set aside the
1002 area in ANILCA. It recognized that ANWR is huge--about the size of
South Carolina--and that it contained more than just scenic resources.
Twenty-three years ago, Congress understood that ANWR is big enough to
accommodate undisturbed wilderness and human habitation and the
possibility of oil development.
Nothing has happened in this part of the world to revise that
understanding. Here in the capital city of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, the reality of two ANWRs still exists. Nothing has changed out
here on the multiple-use tundra. Nothing has been threatened in the
scenic mountains of ANWR.
Environmental groups have discovered over the years that Americans
will donate to the cause of preserving ANWR. If people really
understood that there are two ANWRs successfully coexisting--one of
protected wilderness and one of human habitation and multiple uses--it
might become more difficult for the Wilderness Society to raise money.
So ANWR is pictured as caribou country. You'll never see a picture
of this town in a fundraising ad about ANWR. That's because it's
inconvenient when issues are not just black-and-white.
ANWR is not a black-and-white issue. There is more than caribou and
oil involved here. There are the subsistence and cultural needs of the
Inupiat. There are the economic needs of people who live in the capital
city of ANWR. There are the interests of private landowners, including
the Native corporations that are responsible for helping to create
local jobs.
H.R. 770 ignores most of these concerns, and that is why the North
Slope Borough opposes this bill. Declaring Kaktovik a wilderness area
is like declaring Seattle or Atlanta or Washington, D.C., a wilderness
area. It doesn't make sense, and it ignores reality.
H.R. 770 pretends that there is only one ANWR, and it honors only
wilderness. In that respect, it is offensive to the people who live
here. They are as much a part of ANWR as the land and the caribou. The
people of Kaktovik have a greater stake in the land and the caribou
than any card-carrying member of Greenpeace. That's because our people
depend on the subsistence value of this area for the health of their
culture. Subsistence hunting and Inupiat culture cannot be separated.
The culture depends on a subsistence way of life.
H.R. 39 acknowledges the multiple interests in this part of ANWR.
It recognizes the need for economic opportunity and cultural vitality
for the people in one ANWR, and it preserves the wilderness values in
the other. The North Slope Borough supports exploration and development
of the Coastal Plain, as long as protections for subsistence, the
environment and wildlife are included.
H.R. 39 makes specific provision for impact assistance to affected
communities. The bill's establishment of an impact aid fund is
recognition that even careful development has impacts on the people and
the lifestyle in the area. H.R. 39 sets up a mechanism for helping to
deal with these economic, social and cultural impacts.
The North Slope Borough expects to play an important role in
monitoring and dealing with the effects of development. Our dependence
on the land and wildlife gives us the incentive. Our zoning and
permitting powers--as well as our regional health and safety services--
give us the tools. We will always watch over development to make sure
it serves the historic interests of our people, along with the energy
future of the nation.
There is much more to say about the Inupiat perspective on ANWR. I
want to yield the floor now to other speakers, but I will send the
Committee an expanded version of these comments in the very near
future.
In conclusion, I ask that when you consider these bills and any
other ANWR legislation, you remember that there are really two ANWRs,
and there is room within these 19 million acres for both ANWRs to
exist. ANWR is not just a battleground over caribou and oil--it's also
home to real people with deep cultural roots here and the hope of a
productive future for their children. Please talk with the people of
Kaktovik while you're here today. They are the voice of ANWR.
Enjoy your visit.
Quyanaqpak.
______
Mr. Ahmaogak. I think for the Committee it's important for
you to realize that this village is the capital city of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
I know it sounds a little strange to talk about a community
in the midst of the wildlife refuge. That's because there are
actually two ANWRs. The one you see in the ad in the newspaper
by environmental organizations, and the one that extends about
as far as you can see in every direction from here.
The first ANWR is beautiful mountain scenery that seems to
go on forever. It's a world of wildlife, a refuge from noise
and disruption of human community. Obviously, you are not in
that ANWR at the moment, sitting here with us.
You are here in the second ANWR. It is tundra. And the old
decommissioned military site, which is just adjacent next door.
And the Eskimo residents who have lived and hunted and survived
around here for thousands of years.
You won't see this ANWR on the Sierra Club poster. That's
because it's not really a refuge. It is a land of multiple
uses, of many uses. Has been for a long period of time. Those
uses predate its designation as a refuge, and in some cases,
predate the founding of the entire United States.
This is Eskimo country. This is Inupiat country. It has a
thriving village whose residents work at local jobs and travel
in all directions to hunt for caribou. The bowhead subsistence
whaling and all of their animal species that have always
sustained our people. This is the way we live. It is the nature
of our culture, and nothing is going to change any of that.
The Sierra Club would have--probably be happier if we
stopped hunting and fishing. We would be happier if they
stopped floating down all the rivers in ANWR. Disrupting the
wildlife that we depend on. But we can all get along if we
acknowledge two ANWRs, and if we allow both to exist, coexist.
That seems to be what Congress had in mind when it set
aside the 1002 area in ANILCA. It recognized that ANWR is huge,
about the size of South Carolina. And that it contained many
more than just scenic resources.
Years ago, Congress understood that Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is big enough to accommodate undisturbed
wilderness and human habitation, and the possibility of oil
development. Nothing has happened in this part of the world to
revise that understanding.
Here in the capital city right here, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, the reality of two ANWRs still exists. Nothing
has changed here on the multiple use tundra. Nothing has been
threatened in the scenic mountains of ANWR.
Environmental groups have discovered over the years that
Americans will donate to the cause of preserving ANWR. If
people really understood that there are two ANWRs, successfully
coexisting, one a protected wilderness, and one of human
habitation and multiple uses, it might become more difficult
for the wilderness society to raise any money at all.
So ANWR is pictured as a caribou country. You'll never see
a picture of this town in a fund-raising ad about ANWR. They
never have, they never will. That's because it's inconvenient
when issues are not just black and white. ANWR is not a black
and white issue. There is more than caribou and oil involved
here.
There are the subsistence and the cultural needs of the
Inupiat. There are the economic needs of people who live in the
capital city of ANWR. There are the interests of private
landowners, including the native corporations, private
corporations that are responsible to help in creating more
jobs.
H.R. 770 ignores most of all of these concerns. And that is
why the North Slope Borough, the government that I represent,
opposes this bill. H.R. 77. We oppose that bill. Declaring
Kaktovik as a wilderness area is like declaring Seattle or
Atlanta or Washington, D.C. as a wilderness area. It doesn't
make any sense. And it really ignores a lot of reality.
H.R. 770 pretends that there is only one ANWR, and it
honors only wilderness. In that respect, it is offensive to the
people who live here. They are as much a part of ANWR as the
land and the caribou.
The people of Kaktovik have a greater stake in the land and
the caribou than any card-carrying member of Green Peace.
That's because our people depend on the subsistence value of
this area for the health of their culture.
Subsistence hunting in Inupiat culture cannot be separated,
no matter what. The culture depends on a subsistence way of
life. We have to depend on that.
Now to talk about H.R. 39. H.R. 39 acknowledges the
multiple interests in this part of ANWR. It recognizes the need
for economic opportunity and cultural vitality for the people
of one ANWR. And it preserves the wilderness values in the
other.
The North Slope Borough, the municipal government, the
regional government supports exploration and development of the
Coastal Plains, as long as the protection for subsistence, the
environment, and the wildlife are included. Amen to that.
H.R. 39 makes specific provisions for impact assistance to
affected communities. The bill's establishment of the Impact
Aid Fund is recognition that even careful development has
impact on the people and the life-style in this area. H.R. 39
sets up a mechanism, language in that bill for helping to deal
with each economic, social, and cultural impacts.
The North Slope Borough, our regional government, expects
to play an important role in monitoring and dealing with the
effects of development. Our dependence on the land and wildlife
gives us the incentive. Our zoning, permitting, land use,
governmental powers, as well as our regional health and safety
services, give us those tools.
We will always watch over development to make sure it
serves the historic interests of our people, along with the
energy future of this nation.
There is much more to say about Inupiat respect upon ANWR,
and I'm glad we had an opportunity to hear the residents today.
In the conclusion, I ask that when you consider these
bills, and any other Arctic National Wildlife legislation, you
remember that there are really two ANWRs, and there is room
within this 19 million acres for both ANWRs to exist.
ANWR is just not--is not just a battleground over caribou
and oil, it's also the home of real people with deep cultural
roots here, in the hope of a productive future for our
children. You've heard that young lady talk today. And I'm glad
that you're talking to the villagers of Kaktovik here today.
These people are the voice of ANWR.
Now, let me talk about North Slope Borough and the many
questions, to answer a lot of questions that were raised, that
you asked the panels.
The North Slope Borough is a regional form of a government
created as a home rule government under the Constitution of the
State of Alaska. They gave us--in 1972, it was incorporated,
and we were allowed to select within our jurisdiction 94
million acres of land.
The North Slope Borough is our tool, our municipal
government for self-determination. That government was created
right after the initial Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in
1971. Because we see the benefits of really taking a form of
government as a tool to improve the quality of life for all of
our residents in all of the eight villages.
With our broad governmental powers of land use, zoning,
permitting, coastal zone management, and the power of taxation,
and the power of taxation, real property and personal property
as the North Slope Borough exercises authority as a municipal
government and tax the oil and gas industry, the Prudhoe Bay,
the TransAlaska pipeline, Endicott, Kuparuk, now Alpine, and
now NPR-A.
But those funds that we tax went into major improvement of
life for all of our residents across the whole North Slope.
What you see in this village, we have hospitals, health aide
clinics, we have police stations, we have water, sewer being
constructed, we've got municipal services, we've got search and
rescue.
All of these government funded departments that we serve,
serve our purpose and our residents here, and to improve the
quality of life that we have. And we have done that since 1972
by taxing the oil and gas industry.
And we improved the standard of living for our people,
something that we--everybody else across the whole Lower 58
took for granted. We took that self-determination as our local
government, and used our broad governmental powers to improve a
lot of that.
Unfortunately, at least at this stage, like one of the
panelists, the Mayor of Kaktovik said, revenues are declining.
That is a very true statement.
Our municipality is projecting $30 million cuts in 6 years.
For all of these services that we provide, including the
education in the high school and middle school and elementary.
We took the school district in our own hands as a self-
determination, away from the Borough of Indian Affairs.
But that takes tax dollars, too, and by all of us and we
may gain no services. 60 percent of the work force that you see
in entirety in all of our eight villages are employed by the
borough. And we depend on that oil money.
And for me, that's why, at least the assembly, and me as
being the mayor, support the opening of the 1002 area. That we
need those future revenues to keep this life-style that we have
created since 1972 and beyond. We don't want to go back to the
old ways, go back in igloos.
We want to continue the way that we're progressing, to keep
our people, our young people educated, jobs for our residents,
services for our residents, that everybody takes for granted in
the whole Lower 48.
And by God, they gave us that tool, the North Slope
Borough. And we have successfully built all of this
infrastructure, basic infrastructure in each and every one of
our villages.
Opening up 1002 will give us additional income. But I
question whether, since there's overlapping jurisdictions, very
important, that if we're going to allow for 1002 to be open,
that the city of Kaktovik's concerns and their positions be
taken very seriously, and including the North Slope Borough.
You're going to have to need that.
If you want to see environmental sound development,
including the state of Alaska, you're going to have to see that
form of partnership. We don't want this Federal supremacy rule
all over us. Then you're going to really see some real problems
that's going to happen if you allow that to happen.
You need to involve the city of Kaktovik, you need to
involve the North Slope Borough, you need to involve the tribal
IRAs, the native corporations in the oil and gas industry.
I think there's a lot of reports today from panelists, from
Arctic Village mention the cumulative effects of oil and gas,
the report that was done by the National Academy of Sciences,
and they referred to that. I want to make a statement regarding
that.
I was a very much part of that whole process. In fact, they
took my statements from the very text of that report. I think
that report, like Senator Murkowski had said earlier, it's a
tool to make things a lot better than what they were.
The recommendations in that report came up to a couple of
conclusions that I understand. If we are to have any oil and
gas development, exploration development, then we need
comprehensive planning.
Second, we need to do research in the effects of oil and
gas, social, human, cultural, and all those areas that need
further research, to get that data, to verify that impact
definitely happened.
The third thing that needs to happen is that mitigation
plans need to be set in place. Because once you disrupt the
migration of the caribou, how do you mitigate that?
Well, you can work with the city of Kaktovik, North Slope
Borough, with our wildlife department, the community, and we
can find ways and plan and mitigate those areas.
The Chairman. I have to ask you to wrap up.
Mr. Ahmaogak. OK. And I'm saying this right now. Use at
least McCovey, which is our first offshore prospect that was
drilled. That was a form of mitigation that we worked closely
with that oil and gas exploration off shore.
And there was mitigation made. In fact, we even got the oil
and gas company to post the bond in the event of a major
catastrophe of oil spill. But it was a mitigation of oil spill,
that came from us and our demand. Tools like this.
You have got to keep in mind we have been in the oil and
gas business, municipality here for a long time. And I think
it's time that at least Members of the Congress understands
that. I think we can have sound oil field exploration and
development, so long as we work with the city of Kaktovik, so
long we work with the North Slope Borough, and all of the
entities that are involved.
I urge you to take that into full consideration. We can
work with the oil and gas industry. There can be mitigations
that can be had. We have done that successfully. But we
definitely need the future revenues of the 1002 area.
Now, the other thing that I wanted to mention, there were
some questions also to the panelists about economic
development, job opportunities, and so forth. I want to go back
to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
And there was questions referencing economic development
and oil potential of our private native corporation, Village of
Kaktovik and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, in 1972, 1971,
when ANCSA was created, another piece of Federal legislation,
it allowed ASRC, it allowed ASRC to select subsurface substate.
It allowed Kaktovik to select surface substate.
And I'll be darned, they connected, partnered up with
Chevron and they put the first ever exploratory well that is
just right located out here, and it's a commercial field.
And this was self-determination under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act extinguishing aboriginal title. Congress
deeded those titles over to the native corporations.
Ironically, because of ANWR, the problem is that the native
corporations are not allowed to develop that resource. Why?
Here we're debating about ANWR. And here's a proven field,
commercial field, private native interest that were deeded
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which should be
allowed to be developed as private corporation. Dividends
should flow.
But no, ANWR legislation prohibits that. They have no room
for any right-of-ways. How do you expect them to develop and
transport that resource? In other words, you gave them the land
claims, you gave them the right for self-determination, you
gave them the right to select their birthright, then you told
them that you can't develop.
That's wrong. That is very wrong. They should be allowed to
develop their land. It's their resources, it's private
property, but the problem is that Federal legislation hinders
that progress.
And if 1002 area is not going to be opened, keep a careful
eye on what that piece of Federal legislation that you pass,
that you promised that you would give them self-determination,
you gave them that land, but now they have got obstructions.
I want you to keep in mind, I hate to go through land
claims that tell me that I can't develop my land. The private
sector. That's wrong. That was self-determination for
extinguishing aboriginal rights on state land.
And I think the corporations, the native corporations
should be considered to be given right-of-way lands and the
opportunity to develop that land.
I don't know what Congress is going to do, but in the event
that it fails, you better know that these people want to
develop that resource. We would like to get jobs. We would like
to bring it to market. But we have got barriers under the
existing legislation.
After all, land claims are land claims. You gave us that
birthright. You gave us that resource. God gave us that
resource to develop the 1002, in the event 1002 area does not
get involved.
I wanted to bring that to your attention. That was self-
determination under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Our birthright to select that land for extinguishing our
aboriginal title.
So with that, I wanted to clear up a lot of things, but as
far as accumulative effects, and that report that was referred
to by the first panelist, I get irate. Using that as a basis to
go against development of 1002 area.
There is some definite positive stuff with that report,
yes, we are going to have to develop a comprehensive plan, and
yes, if we get to 1002, we darn well better have a careful
plan. Comprehensive plan to extract oil and gas. And that's
what that report is focusing.
Yes, there is going to be a battle plan, but how do we
mitigate? How do we make financial resources available that the
people of Kaktovik will want to have?
And the bottom line is when I talk to the mayor, they want
an impact office here in Kaktovik. And I hope part of the
proceeds from ANWR oil and gas leasing funds this operation
because they are going to need it.
I could see in the event 1002 areas comes--opens up, you're
going to see people moving into this community. You're going to
see our schools bustling with new students. You're going to see
water and sewer going up, you're going to see police going up,
you're going to see medevac going up. Who is going to pay for
those costs?
That's why I'm saying impact funds could really offset a
lot of that. Don't put the risk on the local community, nor the
city of Kaktovik. We don't want that burden. You open up 1002,
you put up the money to pay for those impacts. And that would
be definitely needed by this community at the North Slope
Borough.
In the past, we have always paid a lot of the expenses of
these impact areas on state lands and NPR-A, all state lands.
But here that report is a comprehensive report, it's a good
tool.
So thank you very much. I'm going to end right here. But
tonight, we welcome you to Barrow. Barrow is the seat of our
government, and we will be hosting and honoring your presence
here in Barrow and an Eskimo dance is waiting for you. Thank
you very much.
The Chairman. Before we adjourn the hearing--before we
adjourn the hearing, I want to thank the members of my
Committee for coming up here, Senator Murkowski, for coming up
with us, the Governor for being here, all of the mayors, the
Federal officials came up. I want to thank you.
Most of all, I want to thank the people of Kaktovik for
welcoming us in. One of the things that's extremely important
to me is that the Committee take the time to hear what these
local people think and what the impact is on them. So I
appreciate a great deal all of you doing that.
And I just conclude--conclude by saying that we will take
back everything that we heard today, everything that we see in
the next few days, take that back to Washington with us, and
hopefully work with your representatives to represent the views
that you have told us here today.
So thank you very much, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:52 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A letter from Hon. Edward Markey and Hon. Nancy Johnson,
to Hon. Richard Pombo submitted for the record and Chairman
Pombo's response follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6329.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6329.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6329.008