[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 11 (Monday, January 28, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S330-S332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 155. A bill to designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as 
Denali; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would officially rename Mount McKinley in Alaska, simply, Denali.
  Mount McKinley is one of the most iconic geographical features in the 
country, and certainly Alaska. It is the tallest mountain in the United 
States, and we Alaskans are not all that shy about reminding folks the 
mountain is ours.
  Here is the problem: In Alaska, Mount McKinley is referred to as 
something else. We just call it ``Denali.'' That is what we have always 
called it. Denali is an Alaska Native word, an Athabaskan word, and its 
meaning is fairly straightforward. The High One. All my bill does is 
make the name official. I know the name Mount McKinley has a special 
meaning of its own to some folks, specifically the good people of Ohio, 
the home State of our 25th President, William McKinley. My response to 
those people is this: You are more than welcome to go right on 
referring to the mountain as Mount McKinley, just as Alaskans have long 
called it Denali. All that is changing is that the Alaskan name is 
becoming, technically, correct for an Alaskan landmark.
  In the big picture, this is a little bill. I understand that. But I 
also understand, as I know my colleagues do, that it is the little 
things that sometimes matter a great deal to communities. Making 
Denali, the name all Alaskans use anyway, the official name of 
America's tallest mountain means something to Alaska. Officially being 
able to call an Alaskan landmark by its Alaskan name means something to 
Alaskans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 156. A bill to allow for the harvest of gull eggs by the Huna 
Tlingit people within Glacier Bay National Park in the State of Alaska; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
the Huna Tlingit Traditional Gull Egg Use Act which represents an 
important step forward in allowing the Huna Tlingit people access to 
enjoy their traditional subsistence activity of gull egg collection.
  The collection and consumption of gull eggs is an integral part of 
the culture of the Tlingit people of Southeast Alaska, and eggs were 
gathered at rookeries long before Glacier Bay National Park and 
Preserve's establishment in 1925. A Legislative Environmental Impact 
Statement was completed in 2010 regarding this proposal to allow 
limited harvests of gull eggs in Glacier Bay National Park and 
Preserve, and the preferred alternative authorized the implementation 
of a cooperative management program for gull egg collection and 
emphasized a traditional harvest strategy for the collections.
  My bill will authorize this harvest of gull eggs at five nesting 
areas on two separate days each calendar year within the Park. This 
would allow a large number of tribal members to interact with their 
traditional homeland and provide an opportunity for as many as 12 young 
people to participate annually and spend time with elders learning 
about traditional egg harvest practices in addition to other aspects 
Tlingit culture.
  This bill is widely supported throughout the environmental and 
conservation communities, as well as the Alaska Native community. The 
harvesting of gull eggs would only have minor effects on the gulls, but 
the cultural benefits that would be realized by the Native community 
would be great.
  It is my hope that this bill will receive quick but careful 
consideration as the local tribe members have been eagerly awaiting 
passage of this measure for quite a long time.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 157. A bill to provide for certain improvements to the Denali 
National Park and Preserve in the State of Alaska, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation 
that represents an important step in the conversion to renewable energy 
sources in rural Alaska and towards honoring the first individual to 
reach the summit of our Nation's tallest peak, Denali.
  Today I introduce the Denali National Park Improvement Act of 2013, 
comprised of three important provisions relating to Denali National 
Park and Preserve.
  The first provision is the Kantishna Hills Renewable Energy Act.
  The Kantishna Roadhouse, owned by Doyon Tourism, Inc., is located 100 
miles inside Denali National Park and Preserve. The settlement of 
Kantishna was founded in 1905 as a mining camp near the juncture of 
Eureka and Moose Creeks. Gold in the region brought a flurry of 
prospectors in the early days, but as the gold began to run out, so did 
interest in mining the Kantishna Hills. The original roadhouse at 
Kantishna was built in the early 1900s, serving as a private residence, 
a community center, post office, and informal hotel accommodations for 
those who visited Kantishna in Denali Park.
  The Roadhouse, like many structures within Denali National Park, is 
entirely off the grid and generates all of

[[Page S331]]

its electricity needs with a diesel generator. As a result, all guests 
and supplies, including diesel, are trucked through the park to the 
Roadhouse over National Park roads. The construction of the micro hydro 
project would allow the Roadhouse to cut down their diesel usage by 
approximately 50 percent, which would result in a decrease in diesel 
truck traffic on the Park Road, improved local air quality, and less 
sound pollution in this remote area, as well as reduce disturbance and 
vehicle impacts on park wildlife, allowing for an enhanced visitor 
experience for tourists within the National Park.
  My bill will authorize the National Park Service to exchange roughly 
10 acres of National Park land for an equivalent amount of land 
currently owned by Doyon Tourism, and would allow the National Park 
Service to obtain the highly desired Galena tract of land, located just 
off the Park Road in the Kantishna region. Doyon Tourism would obtain 
land over which the hydro project would be implemented. In the interim 
period, prior to completion of the land exchange, the National Park 
Service will issue a permit to allow Doyon Tourism, Inc., to construct 
the micro hydro unit.
  I want to emphasize how important I believe that this bill is. The 
benefit to the citizens of Alaska, especially rural Alaska, of reducing 
their dependence on expensive diesel generation through access to 
renewable and clean sources of energy is enormous. This type of Micro-
Hydro project within Denali provides an excellent blueprint for others 
around the State to follow suit.
  The next portion of my bill will allow a natural gas pipeline to be 
placed inside Denali National Park. I am reintroducing legislation that 
I first offered in 2009 and that passed the Senate, but not the House 
of Representatives in the 112 Congress, which will authorize a right-
of-way for construction of an Alaska instate natural gas pipeline to 
run along the State's main highway from Fairbanks to Anchorage. This 
bill will provide a right-of-way for a natural gas pipeline near the 
shoulder of the Parks Highway for the roughly 7 miles that the highway 
runs through Denali National Park and Preserve.
  I wish to explain why I am introducing the bill now, and why, rather 
than being an infringement on Alaska's most famous national park, the 
measure is actually the favored route by many in the environmental 
community to bring natural gas from the foothills of Alaska's North 
Slope to Southcentral and coastal Alaska.
  While many in this body have heard about plans for a large-volume 
natural gas pipeline to run from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the 
Lower 48 States, the project for which many in this body voted to 
approve a loan guarantee, tax credits and permitting improvements in 
2004, there is concern that the big pipeline will not be finished in 
time to get gas to Southcentral Alaska, gas that is vital for electric 
generation in Fairbanks, Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough and Kenai 
Peninsula. Currently electricity in Alaska's southern Railbelt, as it 
is called, is largely generated by burning natural gas that has been 
produced since the 1960s from the gas fields in Cook Inlet, south of 
Anchorage. But production from Cook Inlet, while the province 
theoretically holds far more gas, has been falling for years, currently 
by about 10 percent annually. A major fertilizer plant near Kenai, for 
example, had to close in 2007 because there was not enough natural gas 
being produced to allow it to obtain the raw product it needed for urea 
production at a reasonable price.
  While there are contract issues and storage concerns involving 
getting sufficient gas quantities for Railbelt utilities starting as 
early as next year, there are serious concerns about the ability of the 
region to produce sufficient gas for electric generation and home 
heating for Alaska's most populated area as early as the winter of 
2014-15, and especially by the winter of 2015-2016.
  To provide a new, reliable natural gas supply, one proposal, is the 
so-called ``bullet'' gas pipeline that involves constructing a 
relatively small diameter-natural gas line, probably 24-inches in size, 
to run from Alaska's North Slope region, past Fairbanks along the Parks 
Highway, and terminate near Wasilla, Alaska. This pipeline would tie 
into existing transmission systems and would bring about 500 million 
cubic feet of gas a day to Southcentral Alaska. This project could be 
completed well in advance of when a larger-diameter pipeline might be 
in service to deliver 4 to 4.5 billion cubic feet a day to Lower 48 
markets or a different project could bring between 3 and 4.5 billion 
cubic feet a day to tidewater in Alaska before the gas could be 
liquefied for water-borne deliveries. Given the pace of planning for 
construction of a larger line project, it is unlikely that a larger 
Alaska natural gas pipeline will be able to deliver gas until 2022 or 
later 6 or more years too late to aid Southcentral Alaska's growing 
need for natural gas.

  There are several potentially competing proposals for a small-
diameter, in-state gas pipeline. I have just described the ``bullet'' 
line proposal along the Parks Highway. A second proposal would run a 
similarly sized pipeline along the Richardson and Glenn Highways to the 
east, also tying into existing transmission systems near Palmer, 
Alaska. There are advantages to both routes, the Parks route delivering 
gas to communities along the Parks Highway while perhaps providing 
clean natural gas to Denali National Park, while the Richardson/Glenn 
project would help provide economic activity to differing towns, such 
as Delta and Glennallen to the east. Now there is a third proposal by 
Fairbanks Pipeline Co. based on the assumption that routes for either 
of the two larger ``bullet'' lines won't be available in time to meet 
gas demand. That project would build a ``mini'' 12-inch line from the 
North Slope to Fairbanks to supply the Interior with natural gas and 
not attempt to provide any gas for use in southern areas of the state.
  It is not my desire to prejudge the outcome of which project or route 
should be selected, since that decision will be made by Alaska state 
regulators and financial markets. It is my desire, however, to 
reintroduce legislation that would clear the lone legal impediment to 
planning for the Parks Highway route, that being how to get the gas 
economically through the mountainous central region of the State past 
Denali National Park and Preserve.
  According to a 2008 analysis of routing options through this area, 
there are three feasible routes for a pipeline through or around the 
roughly 10-mile bottleneck of the Nenana River Canyon and Denali 
National Park and Preserve. The shortest and most logical route follows 
the existing highway through this entire area, 7-miles of which passes 
through Denali National Park. This route causes the least environmental 
and visual impact due to its location in an existing corridor, and 
provides a route that is easily accessible for routine pipeline 
maintenance. A second feasible pipeline route diverts from the highway 
to stay outside of the national park boundaries on the east, but in so 
doing skirts along a steep hillside that dominates a park visitor's 
view. A third route proposed in 2009 would travel far to the west 
around the national park, increasing costs, and potentially moving 
natural gas closer to proposed mineral ventures in southwest Alaska. 
Either of the latter two proposals will create a new disturbed corridor 
in remote locations, and will cause pipeline operation issues and 
reliability challenges due to the remoteness and the ruggedness of the 
routes. The route that avoids the park to the east is estimated to cost 
twice as much as the route along the highway and through the park. The 
western route's cost has been harder to quantify.
  Besides being less expensive to construct and operate, the pipeline 
along the existing, previously disturbed Parks Highway right-of-way, 
could well allow electricity generation for the park facilities at 
Denali to come from natural gas. And for the first time reasonably 
priced compressed natural gas, CNG, could become available to power 
park vehicles, another environmental benefit of the Parks Highway 
route. Currently National Park Service permitted diesel tour buses 
travel 1 million road miles annually taking visitors into the park. 
Converting the buses to operate on CNG can significantly reduce air 
emissions in the park. A third benefit is that for the pipe to cross 
the Nenana River, not far from the park's entrance, will require a

[[Page S332]]

new bridge to be built that could carry not just the pipe, but provide 
a new pedestrian access/bicycle path for visitors that today need to 
walk along the heavily traveled highway rather than on separated, 
pedestrian path toward visitors attractions and nearby hotels. In all 
probability the installation work will be conducted in the shoulder 
seasons to make sure there are no visitor dislocations for tourists 
visiting the park.
  For those reasons and others, a group of eight environmental groups: 
The National Parks and Conservation Association, the Alaska 
Conservation Alliance, the Denali Citizens Council, The Wilderness 
Society, Cook Inlet Keeper, the Alaska Center for the Environment, the 
Wrangell Mountain Center and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance in 2009 
generally supported the granting of a gas line right-of-way through 
Denali Park, along the existing highway right-of-way.
  The granting of a permanent 20-foot easement, and probably a 100-foot 
construction easement, is not precedent setting. The National Park 
Service already has granted a permit for an installed fiber-optic cable 
along the same basic alignment for an Alaska communications company. 
Obviously the exact right-of-way will have to be delineated to avoid 
the existing cable and to accommodate park goals, such as routing 
around a vernal pond viewing area located along the general right-of-
way. Just earlier this year the 112 Congress gave approval for a 
similar bill that allows a gas line to pass through Glacier National 
Park in Montana.
  I am proposing this bill simply to authorize the right-of-way for a 
Parks Highway route soon so that the decision on which route is best 
for the state and its citizens--if the ``bullet line option is chosen--
can be made based on greater certainty in the cost estimates and the 
timing for a project. Removing the uncertainty of permitting and 
regulatory delays will at least permit the Parks Highway route to be on 
a level playing field with the Richardson and Glenn Highway or other 
potential projects. The State of Alaska in 2010 finished a preliminary 
study of the project and continues to consider whether to permit and 
finance a ``bullet'' line project, compared to other options, including 
importing liquefied natural gas or building other renewable energy 
project to attempt to meet Southcentral power needs in the future. But 
approval of the right-of-way would remove a key unknown and allow the 
decision on which project makes the most sense for all Alaskans to be 
made without fear that right-of-way acquisition delays could inflate 
costs unreasonably.

  If the Parks route is chosen and the project proceeds, then the 
national park may well benefit from the environmental benefits of 
natural gas and compressed natural gas being more readily available for 
park activities, cutting air quality concerns, and improving pedestrian 
access--depending upon final economic considerations involving the cost 
and location for a gas conditioning plant.
  In 2009 when this bill was first introduced, it was modified after 
initial introduction to meet all concerns voiced by the environmental 
community and congressional staff and the National Parks Service. The 
version being reintroduced in this joint bill was approved unanimously 
by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and added to the 
American Clean Energy Leadership Act that passed from the Committee on 
June 17, 2009, and again on Dec. 17, 2011. The provision, according to 
the Congressional Budget Office, had nominal--less than $5,000 in cost 
impacts--when scored.
  I truly believe there are no environmental issues with this 
legislation. I think anyone who has ever traveled on the Parks Highway 
in Alaska through Denali National Park would agree, and I hope it can 
be approved by Congress early in the 113 session given the increasing 
severity of the need for power generation in the Alaska Railroad in 
coming years.
  The third and final section of my bill is the Walter Harper Talkeetna 
Ranger Station Renaming Act.
  The Talkeetna Ranger Station, which is the home of Denali National 
Park's mountaineering rangers, sits just about 100 miles south of the 
entrance to the park. Of course, the landmark that's most commonly 
linked to both the park and the ranger station itself happens to be the 
mountain that features a summit which represents the highest point in 
North America: Denali. In fact, anybody who intends to attempt a climb 
of Mt. McKinley is required to first stop at the Talkeetna Ranger 
Station for their permit and mountain orientation.
  It is only fitting, then, that we honor the memory of Alaska Native 
Walter Harper by forever linking his name with this specific ranger 
station. It was Mr. Harper that 100 years ago next year became the 
first person to reach the summit of Mt. McKinley.
  My bill is a simple one, and it is not likely to gain much notice 
outside of Alaska. Within my home state, however, this small gesture 
means a great deal. Alaskans, like the people who call any other state 
home, are proud of the historical accomplishments of their fellow 
Alaskans. Walter Harper was one such Alaskan, and his feat is one that 
will always be remembered.
  Certainly, officially designating the Talkeetna Ranger Station--the 
very building where any hiker today planning to climb Mt. McKinley is 
required to first stop--the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station is a 
fitting tribute to the man himself, as well as his spot in our state's 
history books.
  June 7 of next year, 2013, will mark the 100 year anniversary of Mr. 
Harper's historic climb. It would truly be special for Alaska and 
Alaskans to have this designation in place by that date.

                          ____________________